2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account the following factors: (a) considering the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances: (b) there was a history of having been punished several times due to the same kind of crime; (c) the Defendant was driving without a license in this case at the same time during the period of suspension of execution; (b) the favorable circumstances; (d) the recognition of and reflects the Defendant’s mistake; (c) the driving circumstance; and (d) the driving distance was not long, and (d) the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex, family relationship, environment, and circumstances before and after the crime.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it difficult to assess differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Thus, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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.