The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there are unique areas of the first instance court concerning sentencing, and in addition, considering the ex post facto and in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment just because it is somewhat different from the appellate court’

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, had the history of having been punished three times for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) as stated in the judgment of the lower court. In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though, at around 2013, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she again committed the instant crime even though he/she committed the instant crime, even though he/she had a fluen on the back left of the sidewalk by driving a motorcycle in drinking condition and caused an accident

At the time of crime, blood alcohol concentration was considerably high by 0.168%.

In light of the fact that drinking driving is an offense that may cause harm not only to the life, body, or property of another person, but also may cause harm to the life, body, or property of another person, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the trial process, the lower court’s sentencing on the Defendant appears to have been appropriately determined by fully considering all the circumstances, and no special change in circumstances exists to change the sentencing of the lower court.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.