The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and one year and six months) of the lower court’s sentencing (e.g., 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,

(2) In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to the above sentence on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning of sentencing; and (b) the Defendant’s favorable circumstances in the sentencing asserted in the trial, such as the confession of and reflect against the Defendant, etc., are considered to have been sufficiently taken into account while rendering the sentence at the lower court; and (c) the Defendant, even before the instant case, once having been sentenced to criminal punishment due to drinking driving, again caused a traffic accident; and (d) it is difficult to deem that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking driving was 0.086% lower than the reasonable scope of discretion; and (e) the lower court’s sentencing determination is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion, the defendant.