2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against his mistake, and that most of the unpaid tolls have been paid due to the instant crime for the first time.

However, the crime of this case is a case where the defendant arbitrarily passed the toll road over 803 times without attaching a sprink for more than one year and gains equivalent to the driving fees repeatedly acquired, and the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the background and method of the crime. In particular, considering the duration and frequency of the crime of this case, the defendant is deemed to have committed the crime of this case solely for his convenience or interest without any particular crime for a considerable period of time, and there is a history of criminal punishment, including a crime of fraud, which has already been subject to multiple criminal punishment twice, and as seen earlier, the unpaid tolls has been paid.

Even if the period has elapsed from the date of each crime, and regardless of the criminal case, it is nothing more than the payment of the reasonable toll that the defendant has to pay, regardless of the number of crimes or periods, the equity in sentencing with similar cases that take into account the same kind of crimes, and all kinds of sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, means and methods of crimes, results, etc., shall not be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below 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.