The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without difference between the first instance court and the second instance court, in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the second instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without difference between the first instance court and the first instance court on the sole ground of the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the lower court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable for the lower court to newly determine the sentencing within the reasonable scope of the lower court, given that there is no reasonable change in the sentencing of the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s confession of the crime and the prevention of recurrence; (b) the fact that there was a history of punishment several times for the same crime; and (c) the lack of awareness of driving without a license due to the same kind of crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. As such, 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.