The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant is a North Korean subject to basic living conditions, which is not sufficient to health conditions, and that there are circumstances that may be considered in light of the fact of the instant crime and the fact that the mistake was committed in the course of driving under influence of alcohol, and the circumstances leading to driving under influence of alcohol, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant and his defense counsel clearly withdraw the claim of mental disability during the first trial of the trial, and consider the sentencing of the defendant's present situation dependent on drugs.

2. In light of the current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and directness as to the grounds for appeal, there exists an area unique to the first instance court regarding the determination of sentencing. Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by fully taking into account the favorable circumstances alleged by the Defendant in the first instance court. In so doing, the lower court committed the instant crime at once, including the instant case’s crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to driving without a license for drinking alcohol, and thus, committed the instant crime of this case, even if the Defendant had been punished several times during the period of repeated offense, and there is no special change in circumstances that the lower court should change the sentence after the sentence was sentenced to the lower court.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.