2. The judgment is contrary to the defendant's awareness that he/she would not repeat the crime while disposing of his/her own vehicle to a third party.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant has been punished several times for the same kind of crime, especially the fact that the driverless driving of the driverless license was repeated during the criminal trial due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), the driving distance reaches 40 km, and the defendant's criminal records, it appears that it would make it difficult to expect criminal preventive effects any more difficult to expect criminal punishment, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered, the court below seems to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope.

B. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

The defendant's assertion that the sentencing of the court below is unfair is not accepted.

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.