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. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases 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. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court judgment on the sole ground of the difference from the view of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, it is reasonable to see that the lower court did not have any reasonable doubt that the Defendant had obtained a license of the first instance court on the grounds that the sentence of the first instance court falls within the scope of discretion, such as (i) a fine for drinking alcohol driving in around 209, (ii) a non-exclusive license driving in one year, (iii) a suspended sentence once due to traffic accidents, and (iv) a fine for one time in 2014 and 2016, and (iii) a defendant had no justifiable reason to have newly acquired a license of drinking drinking.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

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.