2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined a punishment in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of drinking alcohol, the degree of damage of the other party vehicle and the injury to the victim, and (b) the Defendant escaped even after having agreed with the victim; (c) there was no change of circumstances or normal relationship that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, records of the crime, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc. as shown in the arguments of the court below and the party branch, the sentence imposed by the court below is not hot within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is no ground for appeal, and the decision of the court below is delivered with the order of correction ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure since it is clear that "Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1)" in Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act is a clerical error in Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.