The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) of the lower court’s sentencing (e., one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing, and the Defendant’s confessions and reflects against the Defendant, etc., which are favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial of the lower court, takes into account the circumstances that are favorable to the sentencing of the Defendant at the trial, which have already been determined by the lower court and sufficiently taken into account while rendering the sentence; the Defendant repeated the same crime despite the fact that there were many records of criminal punishment for driving and driving without a license even before the instant case; and the Defendant’s repeated the same crime despite the fact that the blood alcohol content without a driver’s license reaches 0.163% of the blood alcohol content without a driver’s license, and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and the lower court’s judgment is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3...