2. The fact that the defendant agreed with the victim is favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case does not constitute a special change in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the court below solely on the ground that the defendant submitted a copy of a medical certificate for evaluation of work ability and a written notice for social security benefit that "the defendant was determined as a person eligible for basic livelihood security" issued by the H council member to the effect that the defendant suffered injury to the victim by negligence, such as violating the signal, and at the same time, the defendant did not take necessary measures such as inducing the traffic accident that caused the damage of the vehicle and providing relief to the victim, and that the defendant escaped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the damaged person." The defendant's argument that the defendant's punishment is unfair on the ground that the defendant did not constitute a change in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the court below, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's argument

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is obvious that the “written estimate” in Article 2, Section 14 of the judgment of the court below among the summary of the evidence in the judgment below is a clerical error in the “written estimate” and thus, it is ex officio correction pursuant to Article 25(1)