2. The judgment of the court below is based on the defendant's negligence and degree of damage, such as the confession of all criminal facts and reflects on the defendant's family environment, even though there are some circumstances to consider the defendant's family environment, the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's previous criminal records, the defendant's central intrusion driving of the defendant's central crime, the victim C's six primary injuries required by the victim E, the victim E's four primary injuries, the victim F and G 2 primary injuries. The damaged vehicle's negligence and degree of damage are significant. Nonetheless, the above personal damages are only compensated within the limit of liability insurance, and physical damages are hard to recover from insurance benefits because they cannot receive insurance benefits (if it seems that the defendant's efforts to recover damage is difficult to do so, the victim's age, environment, personality and conduct of the defendant, the motive and circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and the above circumstances before and after the crime are considered to be unfair. Thus, the court below's argument that the above sentencing of the defendant is not justified.

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.