2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Even if the scope of damage is small, the Defendant was unable to recover the damage up to the present day, and the distance of the Defendant driving without a license is reasonable.

However, the lower court determined a punishment in consideration of such overall circumstances, and there is no new reason to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

When comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and criminal records (in the case of being tried together with the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive, considering equity in the case of being tried), as shown in the arguments at the lower court and the party deliberation, the sentence imposed by the lower court was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion,

3. 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.