The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) of the lower court’s sentencing (e., one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following: (a) the lower court rendered the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning for sentencing; (b) the Defendant led to the confession of and reflects against the Defendant; and (c) the victim of traffic accidents did not want to punish the Defendant; (d) the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged in the lower court in the trial have already been determined by the sentence at the lower court; (b) the Defendant, even before the instant case, had three times the record of criminal punishment for refusing to drive alcohol or to take measurements of alcohol; (c) it is difficult to view that the blood alcohol content at the time of drunk driving was lower than 0.083%; and (d) the driving distance reaches about 15 km, etc., the lower court’s determination of sentencing does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (d) it can find changes in circumstances in the sentencing conditions at the lower court.