The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is 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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The sentencing conditions of the lower court did not change compared with the lower court because new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial at the trial. In particular, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too excessive in full view of the following: (a) the grounds for sentencing revealed in the process of the argument in the instant case (in particular, even though the Defendant had been punished twice as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, again caused the instant traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle again while driving a motor vehicle again; and (b) left the road to conceal the fact of drinking driving).

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.