The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment as to sentencing, and in addition, in light of the ex post facto in-depth nature, etc. of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the said sentence differs from the view of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, it is necessary to strictly punish not only a drinking driver but also a crime that may cause damage to another person’s life, body, or property, which is irrelevant to him/her.

The Defendant was punished once as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) and one-time crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (drawing death or injury caused by danger), and committed another crime of this case even if both of the Defendant was punished by a fine or by a suspended sentence of imprisonment. At the time of the crime, the Defendant’s alcohol concentration in blood was considerably higher than 0.132%, and the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol was realized due to the occurrence of the accident caused by the occurrence of the drone.

There is no special circumstance to consider the circumstances leading to the driving of drinking.

Considering the above circumstances, the sentence to the defendant should be imposed.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc. and all the sentencing conditions shown in the trial process, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is sufficiently taking account of all the circumstances, including the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant.