The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing 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, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to the sentencing in the trial of the lower court have already been revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, and there is no change of circumstances favorable to the sentencing criteria after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the following: (a) the Defendant appears to be against the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime; (b) there is no criminal history punished by imprisonment with prison labor; and (c) the distance which appears to have driven is relatively short of about 50 meters.

However, the Defendant was punished by the suspension of the execution of imprisonment on 208, 2012, 2016 due to drinking driving, and was punished by the suspension of the execution of imprisonment on 2016, 2016, but was under the influence of the instant crime, and in particular, at the time of the crackdown on drinking, the Defendant went to the instant crime.