The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and two months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.126% without obtaining a driver’s license even though the Defendant had been punished several times, including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to the instant crime of violating the Road Traffic Act; and (b) the confession and rebuttal of the Defendant, are deemed to have been reflected in the grounds for sentencing; (c) there is no special circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court on the ground that there is no submission of new sentencing data at the trial; (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and the circumstances after the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc. are considered, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.