The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable;

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where the first instance court’s judgment of sentencing was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing review, and the sentencing guidelines, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance judgment as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered during the appellate court’

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing decision in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Defendant is against the duty to recognize a crime.

The defendant scrapped a vehicle that was driven to prevent recidivism.

However, in 2018, the defendant had a record of punishment for drinking driving, but again passed a drinking again.

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

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. as indicated in the instant records and pleadings, even if considering all the circumstances alleged as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. The appeal by the defendant is justified.