2. The fact that the victim H’s property damage was partially recovered is a favorable condition to the Defendant.

However, the defendant caused two traffic accidents due to driving without a license. The second crime is established by causing the victim J, who is 12 years of age in the children protection zone, to go away without relief measures, and the quality of the crime is not very high. The victim J is serious, the victim J has not been agreed with, and the vehicle operated by the defendant is not covered by mandatory insurance, so it seems de facto difficult to recover damage to victims. The defendant has already been punished four times due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the first crime was punished as the violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents because it caused traffic accidents), and the defendant has already been punished nine times due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the first crime was punished as the violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents) and was punished nine times or more due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act; the crime of this case constitutes the same type of repeated crime; the defendant cannot be punished prior to the occurrence of personal information and the misappropriation of another person's personal information in order to avoid the occurrence of the crime; the defendant's motive and motive of this case.

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