2. In full view of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, or the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, the quality of the crime of this case is not good, the defendant was punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., which are assessed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion in sentencing determination, or that there are no new evidence presented during the course of the trial for sentencing of the political party (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Thus, the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing is unreasonable since it is not reasonable for the court below to have imposed a sentence on the defendant.

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

However, among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, it is clear that the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is a clerical error in the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act on March 3, 2003. Thus, the ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules

.