The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had a mental and physical weak condition under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was aware of the fact that he was drinking at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant was aware of the fact that he was drinking prior to the crime of this case, and was punished several times due to drinking driving. Considering such fact, the defendant was punished several times due to drinking driving, although he predicted or could have predicted the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of drinking.

Thus, pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act, the above conditions cannot be asserted as grounds for the dismissal of responsibility or the mitigation of responsibility.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, the first instance court’s judgment that the sentencing of the first instance is unfair is limited to cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance.