2. Determination is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake, the economic situation does not go against himself, and there is a family member to provide support, such as dependants, and on January 30, 2009, there is no history of any particular criminal punishment except punishment for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) on the ground that the Defendant was punished.

However, in light of the following: (a) the crime of this case committed by the Defendant was committed by negligence while driving a motor vehicle owned by another person while driving the motor vehicle owned by another person, and was committed by the driver of the victim who was immediately left at the opposite line due to the negligence of failing to perform his duty of care; (b) the victim did not suffer bodily injury, such as the right breath, which requires treatment for about six (6) weeks; and (c) in light of the violation of the duty of care and the degree of damage; and (d) the Defendant did not constitute the insured of the comprehensive insurance, but did not reach an agreement with the victim until the trial; and (e) other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.