All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. On the summary of the reasons for appeal, the defendant asserts that the defendant is too unfasible with respect to the punishment (eight months of imprisonment) declared by the court below, and the prosecutor is too unfased and unfair.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s mistake was committed while committing the crime, and that the Defendant paid the automobile repair cost to the victim.

However, the defendant has already been punished for the same type of crime, such as drinking driving, driving without a license, etc., and in particular, the degree of criticism is high in that he/she had a high level of criticism in that he/she was able to drive a motor vehicle without a license while driving the motor vehicle again without being aware of even though he/she is a repeated crime due to drinking driving, driving without

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too hot or unfasible.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the facts constituting the crime of the judgment below are obvious that the "F" of 2. 11 and 13 conducts is a clerical error in each victim F, it is corrected ex officio).