Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the two-year probation, the observation of protection, and the community service order of 80 hours in April) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant has the record of being punished for driving without a license in the past, and, in particular, the Defendant committed the crime of driving without a license in the instant case during the period of probation due to drinking driving, etc. (the period of probation was imposed, but the Defendant was not in good condition after the crime was committed, such as refusing to comply with a request for attendance during the investigation period.

Meanwhile, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment after around 2009, and that there is a family member to support.

In full view of all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be appropriate, and is too heavy, or is deemed to be unfair because it is too low, and thus, the allegation by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That the reasoning for sentencing by the court below is that the "social service and lecture order" in Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act is clearly a clerical error in the "protective observation and community service order", and such order is clearly corrected ex officio under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.