2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects the mistake; and (b) the Defendant was the primary offender, and the circumstances favorable to the Defendant are recognized.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have driven in distress, such as changing the course, overtaking, or changing the course of a two-lanes without using the direction direction, etc., and the criminal liability is heavy in light of the contents of the crime, and the occurrence of traffic danger due to the defendant's extreme driving, and our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, has the unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first trial sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances favorable to the recognized defendant do not constitute a change of special circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the issuance of the judgment of the court below, and if the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc. are all circumstances constituting the conditions of the sentencing in this case, it cannot be deemed unfair for the court below to have taken into account the punishment against the defendant too unfair.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, “46-3” of Article 25(1) of the original judgment ex officio is corrected as “Article 46-3”.