2. It is recognized that the judgment of the Defendant is against the recognition of all the crimes of this case, the injury was sustained due to traffic accidents at the time of each of the crimes of this case, the elderly living alone, and the suffering of hearing disorder, etc. are relatively old, although there was a history of criminal punishment on several occasions, it is recognized that there was no record of criminal punishment after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for robbery and injury in 2008.

However, even though the Defendant did not have obtained a driver's license again after the cancellation in 2003, the Defendant appears to have continuously driven the vehicle without purchasing a mandatory insurance policy in 2013, even though he did not have obtained a driver's license again, it appears that the Defendant had continued to drive the vehicle without purchasing a license. The occurrence of a traffic accident involving freight vehicles among each of the crimes of this case occurred, and it does not seem that there was an urgent or inevitable circumstance for the Defendant to drive the vehicle without a license at the time. In full view of the Defendant's age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to each of the crimes of this case, etc., and all other circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the record, such as the Defendant's age, environment, occupation, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crimes, it is unreasonable to view the lower court's punishment excessively unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.