2. The Defendant was sentenced to a sentence on two occasions over a crime that includes a non-licensed driving, and was punished by a suspended sentence or a fine on eight occasions due to a non-licensed driving, etc.

A person who is a repeated offender due to a license without permission or driving without permission was driving without permission of this case during the period of repeated crime.

In light of the records of the Defendant, although the instant crime is limited to the driving without a license, it may be possible to select imprisonment.

However, it is confirmed that the Defendant sold the instant vehicle, and as a result of the sentencing investigation, the Defendant appears to have the light of reflectivity, such as not driving a vehicle and using public transportation, etc. after the commission of the crime, and in full view of the sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the circumstances leading to the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not deemed unreasonable to select the Defendant as a fine and allow the Defendant to take the action.

In the above purport, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below that selected the Defendant as a fine (legal maximum amount) is too unfluent and so it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.