2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant recognized the crime of this case and opposed to it.

However, if the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he was issued a summary order by committing the same crime during the period of repeated crime for the same crime, and the Defendant had been punished several times for the same crime, the Defendant agreed to or was unable to recover from the victims, there is no change in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentence of the lower court, and all other factors on the records and changes of the instant punishment, including the Defendant’s age, sex, conduct, environment, means and consequence of the crime, circumstance before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure: Provided, That the court below's decision to revise "the imprisonment choice" of Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act to "the imprisonment without prison labor as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and the violation of the Road Traffic Security Act (Article 37, the violation of the Road Traffic Act)" as "the imprisonment without prison labor as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Security Act (Article 37, the former part of Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act)" of the 17th act "Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, Article 38 (2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Act."