2. In light of the fact that the defendant committed the instant non-licenseing crime even though he had a previous record related to traffic on several occasions, strict punishment corresponding thereto is required.

However, the defendant does not again refrain from committing a non-licensed crime.

The following facts are met: (a) the Defendant did not cause a traffic accident by driving without a license in this case; and (b) the Defendant’s crime in this case is in concurrent relation between the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving of Drinking) and the crime of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act as stated in the judgment of the court below that became final and conclusive; (c) the Defendant’s judgment at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act should take account of equity in the case of concurrent crimes; (d) the Defendant is currently 69 years old; and (e) the Defendant’s character, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the Defendant’s crime; and (e) other various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances after

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