2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Not only is the distance from which the Defendant driven without obtaining a license but also the Defendant committed the instant crime despite the fact that the criminal punishment power for traffic crimes occurred several times.

Furthermore, the Defendant was punished on February 19, 2018 by drinking and driving without a license, and carried out driving without a license again after several months, etc., so it is insufficient to comply with the Road Traffic Act as well as the risk of recidivism. Therefore, it is necessary to cause awareness of it through a strict punishment.

The court below determined punishment in consideration of such overall circumstances, and there is no new reason to change the punishment of the court below in the court below.

Considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. as revealed in the oral arguments at the lower court and the party hearing, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not hot, as it takes place within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.