2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and reflected against the defendant.

However, the Defendant had been punished for the same type of crime, such as drinking and driving without a license, several times. On October 16, 2015, the Defendant was under suspension of the execution of the imprisonment for six months due to the crime, etc. on March 10, 2017, and was under suspension of the execution of the sentence, and was under suspension of the execution of the crime, and was under suspension of the execution on March 10, 2017 (under this case, a summary order of KRW 5 million was issued on April 14, 2017), and was under suspension of the execution of the crime on May 12, 2017 (the first crime in this case), without a license for driving on June 15, 2017 (the second crime in this case) and led to a short-term series of crimes such as driving without a license for driving on June 15, 2017.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and the fact that it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below is in the period of suspension of execution as it becomes final and conclusive.

“The judgment became final and conclusive.”

“Corrections ex officio and ex officio correction)”