A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Judgment

The Defendant asserts that while the Defendant was driving at the time of marriage by E, he was able to drive without a license on the ground that he was seriously suffering from her own blood, and that her fingers fall short of her fingers, the Defendant has to take into account the fact that the Defendant is tending to marry with the above E by marriage, and that the Defendant ought to take into account the fact that the Defendant has a high-quality shoulder disease and needs to receive pain treatment.

Taking into account the aforementioned circumstances of the Defendant, even if the Defendant had been sentenced to 8 months imprisonment due to the crime of larceny, violation of Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) at the Seoul Central District Court on December 18, 2014 and repeated driving on 10 occasions from 2009 to 2014, the Defendant had been sentenced to 2 times of imprisonment, 3 times of suspended sentence of imprisonment, 1 time of suspended sentence of imprisonment, and 2 times of a fine (written inquiry about driver’s license, 201), and 3 months of imprisonment due to the crime of larceny, violation of Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) at the Seoul Central District Court on February 9, 2015, and repeated repeated driving on September 5, 2016 in a short period of time while the enforcement of the sentence was completed and repeated during the repeated period, and all of the sentencing conditions of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and crime after the crime are considered unreasonable.

As the appeal by the prosecutor is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the prosecutor is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting an offense and the summary of the evidence, and thus, the gist of the evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act (as the judgment of the court below decided to be fined, but already stated matters concerning repeated crimes in the summary of

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime;