The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant by taking account of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even if he had the history of punishment for drinking driving twice, and that at the time, the Defendant committed the instant crime, the blood alcohol concentration (0.16%) of the Defendant at the time, and the Defendant was punished for drinking driving, and that the Defendant was punished several times other than the punishment for drinking driving. Furthermore, on November 15, 2018, the Gwangju District Court was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with labor for the crime of interference with business and 3 years of suspended execution, and did not commit the instant crime even during the suspended execution period, under the circumstances that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being sentenced to the punishment for the crime of interference with business on November 15, 2018.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and there is no other reason to view that the court below’s punishment was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following factors, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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