2. In full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant is not a beneficiary of basic livelihood security; (c) the economic situation is difficult for the Defendant as a beneficiary of basic livelihood security; (d) the legislative intent of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act to protect the victim from traffic accidents by forcing a motor vehicle owner to purchase mandatory insurance; and (e) the period during which the Defendant drives a vehicle without mandatory insurance; (b) the balance in sentencing with other cases similar to the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, in the application of the law of the court below, the "Article 46 (2) 2 and the main text of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act" is a clerical error in the "Article 46 (2) and the main text of Article 8 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9450 of Feb. 6, 2009)", and thus, it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.