2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There are circumstances to be taken into account, such as: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the offense; (b) the victim did not want the punishment against the Defendant; (c) the victim did not wish to do so; (d) the Defendant’s wife and her children were in a position to support her wife and her children; (c) the Defendant appears to have been damaged directly or by automobile insurance; (d) the Defendant’s father died 10 days prior to the instant offense; (d) the Defendant was suffering from economic difficulties due to loans; and (e) the son was in a social relationship, such as the Defendant’s desire to her wife.

However, even though the Defendant already been punished several times for the same crime (the fine for drunk driving on December 2013, the fine for drunk driving on October 2014, the fine for drunk driving on June 2016, the suspension of drinking driving on October 2016, the fine for non-licensed driving on October 2016), the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim by causing a traffic accident in the state of constant drinking, and the degree of blood alcohol level high, and the need to strictly punish the Defendant’s life as well as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., taking full account of the factors indicated in the instant pleadings, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment was exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion, or is too unreasonable, and there is no new circumstance to consider in the trial. Therefore, the Defendant is also found.