The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and in-depth nature, 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 in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant, considering all the sentencing factors, including the Defendant’s age, career, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., comprehensively, taking into account the above sentencing factors, such as the Defendant’s confession and reflects that the Defendant had already been under the influence of alcohol at the lower court before being sentenced to a traffic accident.

It is not visible, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court because there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions in the trial.