2. A favorable circumstance such as the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the instant crime and reflectability exists.

However, the defendant has a lot of records of punishment for the same crime such as drinking and driving without a license.

In particular, on June 18, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence on six months due to drinking or non-licensed driving on June 18, 2015, and was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence, and the Defendant committed a non-licensed driving under the suspended sentence (i.e., January 19, 2016) and a crime of drinking or non-licensed driving (i.e., June 5, 2016), and again committed the instant non-licensed driving on February 17, 2017 under the same suspended period.

In light of the above unfavorable 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, Jul. 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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