The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The Defendant appears to have recognized and reflected the instant crime.

The Defendant, after acquiring a license after committing the instant crime, seems not to have high possibility of reoffending.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the defendant, whose license was revoked due to drinking driving, was found to drive without a license, the crime of this case is not suitable to use the written self-written statement by forging the written self-written statement.

The defendant has already been punished for drinking and driving without a license on several occasions.

If 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, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive for committing the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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.