The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant, who led to the instant crime, led to the confession of and reflect on the instant crime, and the most supporting the old parents and the son’s children.

B. However, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstance before and after the instant crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument, even if the lower court’s judgment’s conviction becomes final and conclusive, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, is not too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

C. Meanwhile, even though the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) ex officio are in a mutually competitive relationship, the court below erred by applying substantive concurrence among the above crimes. However, even if the court below erred by the evaluation of the number of crimes as above, it is difficult to see that such errors by the court below did not have any difference in the scope of punishment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7335, Feb. 28, 2003). Thus, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed for such reason.

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.