The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In full view of the factors revealed in the arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too excessive and thus, there is no change in the sentencing conditions in comparison with the court below. Since the Defendant again dices alcohol after having escaped from the scene of the accident, the Defendant cannot know about the specific drinking level, but the Defendant’s negligence was heavy; the Defendant was punished several times due to the crime of this case, including imprisonment with prison labor, and the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, circumstance of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., it cannot be said that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.