The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment regarding sentencing. In addition, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto core nature, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment solely on the grounds that the first instance judgment differs from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Considering the above legal principles, the lower court appears to have determined the first instance judgment’s reasonable sentencing, including the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s act of having five times or more years experience of driving alcohol, causing traffic accidents; and (b) the Defendant’s change in the risk of blood alcohol at the time of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.