The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the first instance court

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant in relation to the sentencing of the instant case and circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and did not find any circumstances to be newly considered in the trial.

Considering these circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair solely on the grounds that the Defendant asserted as the grounds for appeal.

3. In conclusion, 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 clear that the "Road Traffic Act Article 154 subparagraph 2 and Article 43 (Unlicensed Driving)" in the 3th to 17th 18th of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the "Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of unauthorized Driving)". Thus, it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.