2. The judgment of the court below is the circumstance favorable to the defendant that the defendant could lose his work where he is led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, paid the agreed amount of KRW 30 million to the victim's bereaved family members and agreed smoothly with the victim's bereaved family members.

However, the defendant driving a vehicle with approximately 85 km speed exceeding 145 km speed, resulting in death by shocking pedestrians. The degree of violation of the duty of care is large and the result is also serious, and the fact that the defendant has been sentenced one time to a fine for traffic-related crimes is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances and other circumstances leading to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc. and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the oral arguments, there is no change in circumstances to determine differently between the original judgment and the punishment, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Sentencing Commission [the scope of recommended punishment] in the basic area (under August to one year and six months), the basic area (under one year and six months), (under the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Specialized School Act (under the two or more proviso), the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing is not unfair since the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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.