The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of deliberation about sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentence falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence differs from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the above legal principles, it appears that the Defendant, while taking into account the aforementioned legal principles, failed to use his/her signature on the grounds of the change in the sentencing of the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., drinking refusal) once, one-year, and one-year one-year one of the foregoing traffic accident.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.