The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (4 months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Defendant has several criminal records of violating the Road Traffic Act due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act. In particular, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol on or around 2013, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence for again driving under the influence of alcohol on or around 2017, even if he/she had been sentenced to a suspended sentence, even if he/she had been placed on a repeated line for traffic crimes, he/she violated the Road Traffic Act during the suspended sentence due to his/her livelihood.

In light of this point, since the defendant lacks compliance spirit with the Road Traffic Act, it is necessary to cause awareness of it through strict punishment.

The lower court determined a punishment in consideration of such overall circumstances, and there is no new reason to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

When comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, family relationship (in the course of supporting the parent), motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the deliberation of the lower court and the party, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not hot, because it was done within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. 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.