2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

Defendant

The victim's damage from the vehicle insurance company seems to have been restored to a certain part.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is not deemed to have been committed since the defendant was sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) and did not even exceed two months.

The defendant had a total of two times criminal records of violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) and one time of violation of the Road Traffic Act (drawing after the accident), and the defendant did not make any effort to recover the damage to victims until the depth of the party.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

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.