2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s deep reflects on the instant crime, that part of the stolen property was returned to the victims and the damage was recovered, and that the degree of the Defendant’s drinking at the time of drunk driving is minor.

However, the defendant has been punished several times due to drinking or unlicensed driving, and in particular, the defendant committed the crime of drinking or unlicensed driving, etc. of this case again without being aware of the fact that he/she was committed even during the repeated crime period, and the crime of acquiring stolen goods is engaged in the crime that is ultimately exported to China by purchasing the lost or stolen mobile phones, and thus, the nature of such crime is very poor, there is no agreement with the victims, and the circumstances already favorable to the defendant are considered in the original judgment, and there is no special circumstance or change to newly consider sentencing after the sentence of the original judgment, and all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are considered to be unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the court below's decision to correct "20 cellphones" in Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act as "20 cellphones listed in Articles 1 through 20 of the List of Crimes" (the prosecutor also corrected the facts charged in the trial as above). It is so decided as per Disposition.