2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

The lower court sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment, which is the lowest statutory penalty, by taking account of the favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant.

There are favorable circumstances such as recognizing and reflecting the error of the defendant.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to criminal punishment four times due to drinking or refusing to take a alcohol test, and the Defendant was subject to a summary order on June 8, 2019, and the Defendant was discovered while driving under the influence of alcohol on August 19, 2019, and was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol on August 19, 2019. Even if the trial was conducted on January 2, 2020, the Defendant continued to commit a short-term crime, such as engaging in driving under the influence of alcohol, and even if it was conducted on January 2, 202, there are unfavorable circumstances.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc. and all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be excessively excessive beyond the reasonable limit of discretion.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.