2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court repeatedly repeated the same crimes three times without considering that the Defendant had had a history of driving without a license (including the power of suspending the execution of imprisonment) over six times. In other words, the Defendant was investigated by an investigative agency on the same crime as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the lower court, and committed the second and second crimes with four days less than six days less than six days less than six days later, and was investigated and conducted a license without a license again, taking into account the favorable circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and determined the sentencing of the Defendant under Article 51 of the Criminal Act by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the record and circumstances of the present case.

The lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and even when considering the fact that the Defendant scrapped the vehicle used for the instant crime in the first instance court, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion 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.