The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion in sentencing, unlike the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means, and result of the crime of this case during the period of suspension of execution due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) in favor of the defendant, and other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence, before and after the crime.

In full view of the circumstances to be assessed or the fact that there is no new data that was presented in the course of the trial of sentencing at the party, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.), since the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is unlimited and it does not seem unfair, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da36440, Jan. 19, 201). However, as it is obvious that “the date of January 19, 201” in the first sentence of the crime column 1 as indicated in the judgment below is a clerical error of “the date of December 27, 2010,” the Defendant’