The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant, such as the confession and reflect of the Defendant, are already considered in the first instance court’s determination of the punishment in the first instance court, and even if the Defendant had been subject to criminal punishment by drinking even before being sentenced three times due to a driver’s license without reasonable discretion in light of traffic accidents.

It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the court. Therefore, the court below did not find any change in the situation.