The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment appears to have the attitude of recognizing and opposing each of the crimes of this case, the fact that the degree of injury suffered by the victim of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the holding of the court below is relatively not much serious, the father of the victim has received the compensation for damage from the defendant, and again submitted a written agreement that the father of the victim would not want the punishment of the defendant, and that the balance with the punishment of the crime of coercion for which the judgment became final and conclusive should be considered as favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant, without obtaining a bicycle license for motor device, operated an Ortoba without mandatory insurance, resulting in the risk of not paying damages for traffic accidents occurring during the operation of Ortoba, and the Defendant driven Ora under the influence of alcohol level of 0.108%, while under the influence of under the influence of alcohol level of 0.108%. The Defendant did not normally drive Ortoba while driving it on the road, and the Defendant did not take necessary relief measures and left the victim under the influence of Ortoba while leaving the victim under the influence of Ortoba while driving on the road, and leaving the victim under the age of 5 years without taking necessary relief measures, and even if he escaped without any other dangerous conditions such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too unfair by taking into account the fact that the father of the victim expressed his intention not to be punished against the Defendant in the first instance.

3. 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. However, it is obvious that it is a clerical error ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.