2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the Defendant, and there is no previous conviction in addition to the fine.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by driving under drinking alcohol, driving without a license, even though having been already punished twice due to driving under drinking, and the Defendant’s age, sex, occupation, environment, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, occupation, environment, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court are not changed, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That in the application of the judgment of the court below, it is obvious that the entry “1. Small amount reduction” under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act is a clerical error and thus, it is corrected ex officio as it is deleted).