A. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the Constitution, laws, orders, and rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

(A) The defendant only stated in the petition of appeal as above but did not state specific reasons therefor, and did not submit a separate statement of reasons for appeal within the deadline for submitting a written reason for appeal, and did not appear on the date of trial)

2. Determination

A. The court below found the defendant guilty on all the facts charged of this case based on the adopted evidence. The court below's finding and determination of the above facts is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s wrongful determination of sentencing is divided into his fault, and the victim C’s fault appears to have contributed significantly to the occurrence of the instant accident.

However, considering the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not good, that the defendant did not agree with the victims, that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had the same criminal record, and that the defendant again committed the crime of this case even though he had the same criminal record, the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant

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