2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, the instant crime was committed on a mere unauthorized driving, and the Defendant was in a position to support the Defendant.

However, the Defendant had been punished five times due to drinking or non-licensed driving (three times a punishment, three times a suspended sentence, and two times a suspended sentence). In particular, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime only one month, and the distance of the Defendant’s driving at the time of the instant case was considerably 70km, it is inevitable to sentence a sentence of imprisonment, even though he was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence on January 11, 2017 and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 19, 2017, and was still under suspended sentence.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is no special relationship or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in such circumstances and the trial; (b) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment; and (c) where the sentencing of the lower court does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015); and (d) other various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant records and pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, sex, criminal conduct, circumstances before and after the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.