2. The fact that the Defendant confessions and reflects the instant crime, and that equity should be considered to the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act as stated in the judgment of the court below in which the instant crime has become final and concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, etc. However, on the other hand, the Defendant operated a vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance and actually caused an accident. On the other hand, in light of the legislative intent of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act that intends to protect the victim by establishing the system for guaranteeing compensation for damages caused by the operation of a vehicle, the nature of the relevant crime is not easy; the Defendant repeated the instant crime even if there had already been a history of criminal punishment several times; and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, family environment, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. If so, 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.