The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) On July 23, 2015, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260). The lower court: (a) determined the Defendant’s punishment; (b) considered that there is a need to strictly punish the crime of drinking alcohol; (c) the Defendant had been punished several times in the past as a violation of the Road Traffic Act; and (d) even after having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol, the period of the suspended sentence was over three months after the lapse of the period of the suspended sentence, and was under the influence of alcohol without the awareness of any crime; and (b) considered the high degree of blood alcohol level at the time of the instant crime; and (b) taken into account the fact that the Defendant was not under the influence of her own profits at the time of the instant crime, and did not add the Defendant’s injury to his own profits at the time of recidivism.

As above, the lower court determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and also seems to have been reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court.

Even if considering the health conditions of the defendant suffering from urology, it is difficult to view that there are special changes in circumstances to change the sentence of the court below at the time of the trial.

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, and crime.