2. The judgment of the Defendant shows the form of recognizing and reflecting the crime.

However, even though the defendant was sentenced to a fine several times due to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and was sentenced to a punishment due to obstruction of performance of official duties and damage to public goods, the defendant committed crimes such as damage to public goods of the same kind.

The defendant operated a stobane which is not covered by mandatory insurance in the state of non-licensed condition, and the defendant has a high possibility of criticism by failing to take any measures and causing traffic accidents.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, as shown in the records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is obvious that the “Article 4” of the 16th sentence of the judgment below is a clerical error in the “Article 43”, and it is apparent that it was omitted due to this error after the “the occupation of driving without a license,” and that it is apparent that it was omitted by this error. Therefore, it is corrected or added ex officio in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure.