The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a two-year imprisonment) of the lower court’s sentencing (two-year imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning of sentencing, rendered the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing. The lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable discretion of the lower court’s sentencing determination in light of the following: (a) the circumstance favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial by the Defendant, such as: (b) the confession of the Defendant, and the victim’s bereaved families; (c) payment of KRW 30 million to the bereaved families; and (d) the Defendant had the power to be subject to criminal punishment for drinking driving even before the instant case; (b) the Defendant again brought a traffic accident while driving alcohol again; (c) it is difficult to deem that the blood alcohol content at the time of drinking driving was lower than 0.083%; and (d) the damage inflicted by the victim of the instant traffic accident caused the death.