The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there are areas unique to the first instance judgment regarding sentencing, and in addition, in light of the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant was punished twice as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving without permission) and seven times as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving without permission).

In this case, only five-time driverless driving without permission and one-time driver's driving without permission and causing a traffic accident to inflict injury on the victim.

In particular, on March 17, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) by imprisonment with prison labor for six months on March 17, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 25, 2017. On May 25, 2017, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving), a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving), a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving), a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving), a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, and committed each of the instant crimes even if the judgment became final and conclusive on June

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant seems to have extremely weak awareness of compliance and high risk of recidivism.

Considering the fact that the defendant is elderly and economically difficult circumstances, it is inevitable to severely punish him.

Other cases, such as the age, sex, environment, etc. of the defendant.