The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to the sentencing in the trial of the lower court have already been presented during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no change of circumstances favorable to the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.

The fact that the defendant seems to reflect the crime of this case while recognizing the crime of this case, and that the defendant's health is not good, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant was punished by a fine in 2010 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) and in 2011 for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (drawing, etc.). On the other hand, in 2017, the defendant was prosecuted for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking, etc.) and was under trial.