The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant’s strict punishment is inevitable in light of the following: (a) the instant crime was driven by a truck under the influence of alcohol even though the Defendant had been under the influence of multiple times due to the crime of the Road Traffic Act, including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment; (b) the Defendant was driving the truck under the influence of alcohol despite having been under the influence of multiple times due to the crime of the Road Traffic Act (including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment).

Although the Defendant asserted that there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to driving at the time of the instant case, even if based on the Defendant’s assertion, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act inevitably requires drinking driving, and the lower court determined the punishment by sufficiently considering the overall circumstances, including the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal, including the fact that the victim of the traffic accident expressed his/her intent not to have the Defendant punished at the investigation stage, and as there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, on the grounds that there was no substantial change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and reasonable in full view of all the sentencing reasons in the instant records and arguments.