2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment is against the victim, and the victim’s damage is relatively minor, and the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle appears to have been paid mutual aid money to the victims because it was admitted to the taxi mutual aid association, which is economically difficult for the victim as a basic livelihood recipient, and the health is not good, and the wife who suffers from urology, etc. needs to support the wife who suffers from urology, etc.

However, the crime of this case does not mean that the crime of this case caused a traffic accident by negligence of the defendant who violated the signal and caused injury to two victims, and the negligence of the defendant who contributed to the occurrence of the accident is considerably serious (the point where the accident occurred was a place where the vehicle line or the traffic signal system change from time to time due to the Busan Coast Guard, but the defendant who was on board while engaging in the taxi driving service and was on board the passengers at the time of the accident seems to have been on duty by giving more attention at the relevant point) and other circumstances, comprehensively considering the defendant's age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to each crime of this case, and various circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the circumstances before and after the crime, are considered unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.