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. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(2) On July 23, 2015, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant (such as the fact that the Defendant has already been punished for the same kind of crime, such as drunk driving, etc., several times, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 6 months due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seo branch branch of the Daegu District Court on July 14, 2014. However, the Defendant again committed the instant crime without being aware of, and without being aware of, the possibility of criticism and the risk of repeating the crime, and driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious crime in which not only the driver but also another person's life can be taken, and the amended Road Traffic Act strengthens criminal punishment by raising the statutory penalty for such crime) and there is no special reason for new sentencing or change of circumstances after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, in full view of the following factors: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, background, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, as well as various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the sentence of the lower court was the lowest sentence that may be sentenced within the scope of the applicable sentences after mitigation of punishment as long as imprisonment was selected, it was measured that the level of blood alcohol content was high.

Considering the circumstances alleged in the trial by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel, such as the circumstance where the Defendant and his/her family members are responsible for livelihood or actively participated in the ordinary volunteer activities, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3...