The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime is favorable to the Defendant.

However, in 2003 and 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine twice as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in 2006, and in 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 10 months due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (e.g., an escapeing vehicle) and a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (e.g., a drunk driving). In 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 10 months. In 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 8 months due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (e.g., a drunk driving) and a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving).

In addition, in 2014, the defendant was sentenced to a fine on the ground that he was under suspension of execution while driving without a license in the year of 2014, and thereafter, he committed the crime of drinking and driving without a license.

Therefore, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

In full view of the above circumstances and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and the trial process, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or be too unreasonable.

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.