2. The lower court determined that: (a) under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, each of the instant crimes could be issued a driver’s license by unlawful means; (b) there is a serious damage to the trust of public certificates; and (c) the risk of traffic accidents by increasing the risk of traffic accidents; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime for a considerable period of time and repeated crimes for private interest, such as receiving money in return for the issuance of a driver’s license; (b) the circumstances revealed that the Defendant attempted to conceal or reduce the crime at an investigative agency; (c) under favorable circumstances, the Defendant appears to have reached the court of the lower court; (d) there was no past criminal history; and (d) the Defendant was working as a police officer for about twenty-three (23) years without any history of criminal punishment; and (e) the Defendant’s benefit from the crime was very significant; and (e) the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor and punishment for up to one year, six (3) months and six (30) months after considering all the factors indicated in the arguments in the instant case.

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Furthermore, the grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant are the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account while determining the Defendant’s punishment, and it is unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s decision on the sentencing even in full view of the materials presented during the sentencing hearing of this court.