Considering the fact that the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasons for appeal, and since the current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct care, has a unique area for sentencing determination under the current Criminal Procedure Act, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing determination in the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by fully taking into account the favorable circumstances alleged by the Defendant in the first instance court. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the reasonable scope of sentencing, including the following: (a) the Defendant, who committed the instant crime while having been punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act by driving without a license for the type of drinking alcohol as in the instant case, committed the instant case; and (b) there is no special change in circumstances that the lower court would have to change the sentence after the sentence was sentenced, and thus, did not recognize the reasonable scope of sentencing.

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