2. Determination: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake; (b) there was no history of punishment against the Defendant; (c) the victim D was partially negligent in the occurrence of the instant traffic accident; and (d) the prolonged period of treatment due to the blood disease of the said victim caused the death of the said victim; (b) the crime of this case led to the death of the said victim D; (c) the victim H also caused the injury, such as the injury to the bones, which requires three weeks medical treatment; (d) the vehicle driven by the Defendant was covered by liability insurance, which is not a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; and (e) the said victims cannot sufficiently compensate for the damage suffered by the said victims due to the insurance, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle driven by the Defendant was covered by the liability insurance that is not a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; and (e) the victim’s bereaved family and the victim H did not reach an agreement until the trial; and (e) the victim’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive for the instant crime, means, result of the instant crime; and (e) other circumstances that were too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.

However, in the application column of the judgment of the court below, Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act are erroneous errors in the scope of "Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents," and "Article 268 of the Criminal Act," and it is apparent that "Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act are omitted in the following items." Thus, the relevant legal column for criminal facts under Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure is significant.