The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and two months) of the lower court’s sentencing (e., imprisonment and one year and two months) is 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 to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, 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, such as that the Defendant led to confession and reflects against the Defendant, etc., is favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial of the lower court, considering the fact that: (a) the circumstance favorable to the sentencing of the Defendant was already determined by the sentence in the lower court; (b) the Defendant had three times the record of having been sentenced to criminal punishment due to drinking driving even before the instant case; and (c) the fact that the blood alcohol content reaches 0.261% and generated a traffic accident, etc., the lower court’s sentencing judgment is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (d) it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that there was no change in circumstances in the sentencing conditions in the trial.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.