The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and three 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 foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant’s strict punishment is inevitable in light of the following: (a) the instant crime, despite the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol due to the crime of the Road Traffic Act, including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, even though he/she had been punished several times, is driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol; and (b) re-offending a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.185%.

Nevertheless, there is no change in special circumstances to change the sentence of the court below because a new sentencing data has not been submitted at the court below. Considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, the circumstances leading to the instant crime and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the court below’s punishment is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too excessive.

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.