The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and expressed an attitude against the Defendant is favorable to the Defendant.

However, driving of drinking is likely to infringe not only on the driver's life and property, but also on the other person's life and property.

The current Road Traffic Act stipulates that a person who has violated the prohibition clause on drinking more than twice in order to prevent the driving of drinking which threatens the safety of road traffic and to realize the awareness of such violation shall be punished more strictly when he/she drives drinking again.

The Defendant, even before committing each of the crimes of this case, has the record of criminal punishment for driving under drinking or driving without a license.

In particular, on April 20, 2015, the Jeju District Court sentenced the violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving), the violation of the Road Traffic Act (divated driving), and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (divated driving) to the obstruction of the performance of official duties on November 23, 2015, and completed the execution of the sentence in Jeju Prison on November 23, 2015, and committed each of the crimes in this case even during the period of repeated offense.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it was too excessive.

3. Conclusion.