2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The defendant shows an attitude against the recognition of the instant crime, and the victims do not want to be punished against the defendant by agreement with the victims, and the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime is favorable to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant invadeds the central line and caused the traffic accident of this case, resulting in two victims' severe injury, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it was too excessive.

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