The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In this case, there are favorable circumstances for sentencing, including the fact that the defendant confessions and reflects the crime of this case, and that the defendant would not repeat the crime of drinking driving again by scrapping his vehicle. However, it is difficult for the court below to judge that there was a change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below as the circumstances already considered in the process of determining the punishment. The fact that the defendant had a high blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crime of this case, and that the defendant had a record of criminal punishment such as punishment for the same kind of crime over several times, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too too too excessive and the defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.