All appeals by the defendant against the judgment below are dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (the decision of the court of first instance: the fine of two million won, the second decision: the fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the judgment of the court below of first instance (unlicensed driving) recognizes the defendant's error is considered as favorable to the defendant, but the defendant has been punished for a fine or suspended execution since 2004, since 5 times since 2004, although the defendant did not have obtained the driver's license, it is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion on the grounds that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable since its sentencing is too excessive because of the following circumstances: the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances of crime, circumstances after crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions stated in the arguments and records of this case.

B. The fact that the judgment of the court below of the second instance is erroneous, and that the defendant's economic form is not good, shall be considered as favorable to the defendant. However, considering the fact that the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime five times, and other circumstances that are conditions for the argument of this case and the sentencing specified in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the court below's sentencing is too unreasonable, and thus, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

(The court of the first instance held concurrent hearings of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below, but the defendant was sentenced to one year of suspended sentence on September 12, 2008 at the Seoul Southern District Court of Seoul Southern District on September 12, 2008 and the above judgment was finalized on September 20, 208. The crime of the court of first instance is in the relation of the crime for which the judgment became final and the crime of the court of first instance is in the relation of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of concurrent crimes, and therefore, the defendant is not sentenced to one sentence despite the consolidation.