The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. One of the defendants is committing a crime, and the defendant is against the wrongness, and he does not repeat again while disposing of the motor, device, bicycle used for committing the crime.

However, the defendant had already been punished once by multiplying his/her drinking or driving without a license. On July 21, 2016, the Daegu District Court sentenced the 2-year suspended sentence to 6 months of imprisonment due to interference with the performance of official duties by the Daegu District Court, which was sentenced to the 2-year suspended sentence on July 21, 2016. However, the defendant shocked the victim F who dried the crosswalk in violation of the signal while driving again for only 3 months, and the degree of criticism is large in that he/she failed to make all efforts to recover damage even if he/she was seriously injured by the victim F and did not receive from the above victim.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, health, environment, and circumstances after the crime, and in cases where 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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 by the court below (Provided, That in the application of the law of the court below, "the choice of imprisonment without prison labor or imprisonment" means imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury), "each choice of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act", and "an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes" under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is each clerical error under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, Article 38 (2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Thus, it is obvious that the judgment of the court below is correct ex officio.)