The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced the Defendant (two years of suspended sentence in the month of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Improper sentencing of the relevant legal doctrine refers to cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court.

However, when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the first deliberation sentencing process and the sentencing guidelines, the first deliberation sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

In a case where the appellate court’s determination of sentencing of the first instance is deemed unfair in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s determination of sentencing, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment of the first instance court that rendered the determination of punishment was unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case as a whole and against the victim of the traffic accident, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victims of the traffic accident, the fact that there was no other criminal history other than twice, and the fact that there was no other criminal history other than the fine.