2. The judgment of the defendant shows the appearance of reflecting the whole crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim of a special injury is favorable.

Meanwhile, the Defendant appears to have driven without obtaining a license even during the period of suspension of execution due to the crime of drunk driving, and the Defendant committed the crime of special injury in this case. The Defendant committed the crime of this case, which was under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a license. The details and means of the crime are inferior, the victim’s environment, motive for the crime, consequence of the crime, etc., which led to the crime of this case. The Defendant does not seem to have good conditions after the crime, such as leaving the scene without having the victim as he left the scene, and making a care in a female-friendly Gu and her mother. Meanwhile, it is reasonable to respect the Defendant in a case where there is no change in sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit (However, the court below's decision that it is obvious that the defendant is a clerical error in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is correct ex officio to " January 12, 2018" in the second, second, and sixth of the Decision of the court below.