The sentence (4 months of imprisonment without prison labor, 2 years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the defendant recognized the mistake and reflects the defendant, that the defendant did not want the punishment against the defendant by mutual consent with the bereaved family members of the victim, that the defendant's vehicle is covered by the motor vehicle comprehensive insurance, that the accident of this case occurred while the victim was crossinged without permission at the crosswalk with signal apparatus and is partly responsible for the occurrence of the accident even to the victim, and that there is a family to support the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant, while driving a new wall with a speed exceeding 32 km a speed of 32 km a speed so that it is difficult for him to secure view, caused a traffic accident by his negligence, and the occurrence of a serious result leading to the death of the victim of the instant accident is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

The lower court appears to have determined the sentence in light of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is not deemed too heavy beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.