2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

In order to maintain a livelihood, the Defendant was driving without a license for the instant case. This is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is not the quality of the crime because the defendant who was in the period of repeated crime is driving a vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance in a state without a license.

The defendant has already served several times as a driver without a license to drive without a license.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as 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.