The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court 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 judgment of the first instance court that the sentencing of the first instance is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, or that maintaining the sentencing of the first instance court is unreasonable in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered a sentence on the grounds of sentencing, as stated in its holding, by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant into account, and did not find any circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial.

In particular, considering the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was driving in a state of 0.181% alcohol concentration and caused a traffic accident, the central line was invaded, and the nature of the crime is not considerably good in view of the circumstances of the accident, the victim is seven or more victims due to the instant accident, the degree of injury is very heavy, and the victims are still unable to agree with the victims even if considerable time has elapsed after the accident occurred, it is inevitable to strictly punish the Defendant, and the judgment of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

(2).