2. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant’s negligence in violation of the vehicle stop signal and thereby resulting in the Defendant’s injury to the victim D (the 28-year-old driver), such as the right strings, etc., in need of approximately 8 weeks of treatment to the victim D, and the victim F (the 26-year-old driver), which requires approximately 3 weeks of treatment to the right strings, and the degree of the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care and the degree of injury to the victims is not somewhat weak.

In determining punishment against the defendant, the court below determined the sentence of a fine by taking into account the following factors: (a) a sea-going vehicle is subscribed to a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid; (b) the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victims; and (c) the defendant is the first offender.

As above, the lower court seems to have determined the sentence by fully taking account of the various circumstances asserted by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal.

In addition, considering all the sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be inappropriate because it is too appropriate and too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

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.