2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, took into account (i) the Defendant’s gross injury to the victim due to the Defendant’s failure to recover the damage, although the Defendant violated the signal and snicked the central line, and caused the Defendant’s gross injury, while taking into account the fact that the damage was not recovered; (ii) in favorable circumstances; (iii) the recognition of and reflects his mistake; and (iv) the degree of damage is likely to be recovered due to the liability insurance purchased by the sea-going vehicle (eight to two years); and (iv) the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of recommending sentence] [the scope of ordinary traffic accidents (eight to two years); and (v) the aggravated area of the proviso to Article 3(2) of the Act.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it difficult to assess differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Thus, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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