2. It is recognized that it is necessary to consider equity in the case of concurrent crimes between the obstruction of duties for which judgment became final and the obstruction of duties, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with regard to the crime of non-licenseed driving under paragraph (1) of the judgment below.

However, the defendant has already been punished several times for the same type of crime, such as the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking refusal), despite the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to this type of crime, the defendant again committed the crime of this case, and the defendant's criminal record reaches 30 times and has a large degree of criticism.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, exemption from punishment for the crime set forth in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, the lower court sentenced the lower court by law that reduced the amount of punishment for the crime set forth in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below, compared to the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), etc., it is reasonable to respect such a case where the first instance sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260

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 (Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.