The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for four months and two years of suspended execution, community service order 80 hours, and order of attending lectures for alcohol treatment) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and even considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, even though the Defendant had already been punished for the same kind of crime, it is more true in view of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, and that there is a great degree of criticism, and that the instant crime requires strict legal order and that strict punishment is needed to eradicate the danger of public authority.

Therefore, 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.