The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by 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 instant crime is deemed to have driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished twice due to the crime of the Road Traffic Act (including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor) including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, and it is inevitable to strictly punish the Defendant in light of the Defendant’s state of alcohol (0.132% of blood alcohol concentration) and the circumstances leading to a traffic accident due to such a drunk driving.

Nevertheless, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable and it is not recognized that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.