2. It is true that there are conditions for sentencing favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects it.

However, prior to the crime of this case, the defendant was sentenced to criminal punishment on five occasions as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (two times a suspended sentence and three times a fine), and in particular, the defendant and his defense counsel are not aware of the fact that he committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and that he committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to a fine again during the suspended sentence, and other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime. In full view of the circumstances that the sentence of this case was imposed on the defendant, even if the court below's sentence was imposed, it is too unreasonable to impose the suspended sentence on the defendant, and thus, the above argument

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.