2. That the defendant would not once again drive a drinking or a non-license due to the disposal of vehicles, etc.;

The circumstances, etc. are recognized.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below that the defendant committed the crime in this case during the suspension period of execution due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and furthermore, the defendant was under trial as to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the time of the crime in this case. ① The defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 13, 2016 due to the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, etc., and was finally sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on November 5, 2016 (hereinafter “final judgment”), ② the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on January 24, 2017 and two years after the suspended sentence of one year on July 20, 2017, and the crime in this case became final and conclusive on July 20, 2017 (hereinafter “second final judgment”), and the crime in this case, which was recognized on July 1, 2017, which became final and conclusive on July 21, 2017.

Therefore, Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act does not apply to the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex and family environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is groundless.

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.