The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two years of probation) is too unreasonable.

2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime while recognizing it; and (b) on January 13, 2016, when a judgment was rendered on the same day with the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) that became final and conclusive, the equity between the Defendant and the case should be considered.

However, even before committing the instant crime, the Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment on a multiple occasions due to driving without a license, and has repeated driving without a license.

The Defendant had been under investigation into driving without a license on October 16, 2015 due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) which became final and conclusive by the judgment, but had been under investigation on driving without a license on October 16, 2015.

Considering these circumstances, it seems that the criminal defendant's compliance consciousness is weak.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.