The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (five million won penalty) 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 were mostly revealed in the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no particular change in the situation in the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.

The defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the fact that the distance of drinking driving is relatively short, and the defendant did not reflect the fact that he was sentenced to a fine once due to drinking driving, three times due to drinking driving, and one time due to driving without a license, despite the fact that he was sentenced to a fine, and did not reflect the fact that he was sentenced to the crime of this case, and the degree of violation of the law was serious and the risk of the accident was high.