2. The Defendant was committing a crime, against the wrongness, and the Defendant did not repeat again.

However, there is a high level of criticism in that the defendant has already been punishedh due to driving of alcohol, and in particular, even though he is under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to driving of alcohol, he has not been aware of it, and driving without the driver's license of the vehicle.

In light of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That since it is obvious that "A car is a clerical error in "A car" of No. 2 and No. 5 of the judgment of the court below, it is correct ex officio.)