2. The fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflected against the Defendant, that the victimized person does not want to be punished by the Defendant by agreement with the victim of the larceny, and that there are some circumstances to consider the Defendant’s driving without a license due to the inconvenience of body, and that there are some circumstances to consider in the circumstances.

However, since 200, the Defendant’s criminal punishment including imprisonment for traffic-related crimes has reached 15 times, and the number of times the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment for driving without a license among them is up to 10 times. In particular, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant committed a crime during the period of a repeated crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the trial process, it cannot be deemed unfair since the lower court’s punishment is too excessive. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

1. In the pertinent legal provision on criminal facts, the phrase “Article 326 of the Criminal Act (the Do’s point of view)” is obvious that it is a clerical error in the phrase “Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the Do’s point of view)”, and thus, it is corrected in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.