2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following: (a) the Defendant incurred a traffic accident due to a drunk driving; (b) the victims suffered an injury; (c) the blood alcohol content at the time exceeds 0.1%; and (d) the Defendant had the history of punishing the Defendant as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act two times, even if the Defendant’s economic situation is difficult, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to have exceeded the bounds of discretion by excessively leaving the Defendant’s punishment so long as the Defendant’s economic situation is difficult; and (b) there is no change of circumstances that could change the

(A) The defendant asserts that a fine to a level that cannot be paid in installments is excessive due to his economic condition, but the propriety of the sentence in the original instance is not different on the ground of such circumstance. Therefore, the defendant's argument in the sentencing division cannot be accepted.

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