The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The Defendant is against the time to commit the instant crime, and the Defendant does not repeat the instant crime, such as scrapping the vehicles used for the instant crime.

However, the defendant has already been punished five times for the same type of crime, such as drinking and non-licensed driving, and in particular, in the Daegu District Court on September 8, 2015, the Daegu District Court sentenced the 2-year suspended sentence to the 4-year suspended sentence for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) in September 8, 2015 and again committed the crime of this case even though he had been under the suspended sentence period.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, the Defendant’s status as a person subject to a suspended execution under the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, compared to the first instance court, and the fact that it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing and the sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act is obvious that "Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" is a clerical error of "Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act," and it is corrected ex officio, and "Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1. Small amount mitigated is obvious that it is a clerical error, and thus it is corrected ex officio).