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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflects against himself/herself; (b) there are family members to support; and (c) there are brain-disease disorders and require continuous medical treatment.

However, the defendant had the history of punishment two times including the suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the same crime, in particular, the crime was sentenced to the suspended sentence due to a special injury and caused a traffic accident by driving under the influence of alcohol during the suspended sentence. In full view of the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, background and background of the crime, means and consequence, blood alcohol concentration, driving distance, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the court below seems to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all of the sentencing conditions in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances, means and consequence of the crime, blood alcohol concentration, driving distance, and circumstances after the crime. Thus, since there are no special changes in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the court below, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence of the court below

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.