The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged only.

However, the defendant appealed only to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, and the dismissal portion of the prosecution was not appealed by both the defendant and the prosecutor, and thus the dismissal portion of the above prosecution in the judgment below becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) states that the reasoning for appeal submitted by the Defendant, which is unfair because it is too unreasonable, contains an error of “misunderstanding of facts” in the judgment of the court below. However, the specific content of the appeal states that “the Defendant’s prior decision is made by taking into account the circumstances leading up to driving alcohol, the place leading up to driving alcohol, etc.” In the end, the Defendant asserted only the grounds for appeal.

3. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground of the difference between the view of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary from the first instance court on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol even

The defendant's same criminal records, the degree of alcohol level at the time of the instant case (0.207% in blood).