2. The judgment of the defendant is the confession that all of the crimes of this case, and the defendant was operated.

The fact that the Cub car was covered by a comprehensive insurance, the victim H did not want to punish the defendant, the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) shall be considered at the same time as the crime of larceny of intrusion into the night structure at which the judgment became final and conclusive, in favor of the defendant, or the defendant committed each violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Non-licensed Driving under the Road Traffic Act, the defendant did not agree with the victim D, F, and J, and otherwise, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

In light of the circumstances to be assessed, or the fact that there is no new material to be found in the course of the trial of sentencing at the political party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) and other various sentencing conditions provided for in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair on the ground that the lower court’s punishment was unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s argument of sentencing 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.