The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

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). In the instant case, the Defendant recognized all of the crimes, reflects his/her mistake, and did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine, and the degree of injury to the victims is relatively minor.

The defendant agreed with the victim J and X in the trial of the party.

However, the crime is not good in light of the attitude and risk of the crime, such as the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, runs away from a traffic accident as it is, and re-infusing a traffic accident in the course of escape, or causing bodily injury to a police officer who prevents the escape.

The defendant holds another person's driver's license to use his/her identification card as a designated person, and actually presents his/her driver's license to an investigative agency and forges another person's signature.