2. It is acknowledged that there are favorable circumstances, such as the degree of injury suffered by the victim, the degree of the instant traffic accident appears to be somewhat unfilled, and the fact that part of the damage was recovered due to the comprehensive insurance subscribed to the Defendant’s vehicle and paid a considerable amount of damage to the victim.

However, even though the Defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime as drinking driving, and again committed the instant crime, the instant traffic accident occurred by negligence due to the negligence of neglecting the duty of care in the front time, and the degree of the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care is also heavy.

As such, the defendant's liability cannot be considered to be light.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, there is no special change in circumstances that make the sentence different from the original judgment, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment 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.