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 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the crime is recognized and reflected, the blood alcohol concentration concentration in the blood is relatively high, and the Defendant’s family and fellows wanted to grow up with the Defendant’s prior location.

However, even though the defendant had a record of being punished twice due to drinking driving, and in particular, even though he/she was punished as a crime of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes by causing a traffic accident while driving in drinking condition, he/she is not aware of it during the same period of suspension of execution and is highly likely to cause a serious criticism for the crime of this case.

The court below determined a punishment in consideration of the above circumstances, and additionally submitted a written application to the Defendant’s family members who want to take the Defendant’s preference against the Defendant, but this cannot be deemed to be a change in the sentencing condition that could otherwise determine the sentence of the court below, as the circumstances already considered in the court below.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as revealed in the sentencing hearing process of the lower court, the lower court’s sentence to the maximum extent possible to be sentenced by law by reducing the amount of punishment is excessively heavy, in excess of the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be required to do so.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.