2. The Defendant appears to have an attitude that all of the instant crimes were led to the confession of the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have any record of punishment exceeding the fine prior to the instant case is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the defendant has been punished for the same crime in 2013.

In 2016, the defendant has repeatedly driven a motor vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance and has been regulated in Seoul, Ansan, and the government, etc., and in light of the legislative intent of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act to establish a system for guaranteeing the compensation of damages caused by a motor vehicle accident, it is not easy to protect the victim of a traffic accident.

In addition, although the defendant has been under several times in the same year to pay the fine, it is difficult for the defendant to have the result of repeatedly driving the vehicle into which mandatory insurance is not mandatory, and it is not harsh. Furthermore, the sentencing of the court below seems to have sufficiently taken into account the circumstances where several cases are separated and sentenced.

In light of these circumstances, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing at the appellate court, and all the sentencing conditions in the records and theories of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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.