The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year and four 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 regarding sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto in-depth nature 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 falls 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 basis of the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the lower court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

However, the defendant has been punished for seven times as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), six times as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving without a license), and two times as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking refusal of drinking), and the two times as a suspended sentence of imprisonment, and the two times as a sentence is sentenced. Despite such criminal records, the last three months has not passed since the completion of the sentence, and again, the crime of this case was committed.

Moreover, the risk has been realized by causing traffic accidents at once.

There was no agreement with the victim.

It is considered that it is necessary to strictly punish the accused who has weak awareness of compliance and has very high risk of recidivism.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.