2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s confession of a crime and reflects the wrongness, and that the Defendant’s economic situation is difficult for a basic livelihood recipient.

However, the Defendant: (a) committed an injury on the ground that the victim was living in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle without signal while driving the vehicle; (b) stopped the victim’s vehicle; and (c) did not agree with the victim to recover the damage, and there was no effort to recover the damage; and (c) the Defendant was 11 times the same criminal record (4 times the actual punishment, 4 times the suspended sentence, 6 times the fine). In light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, background, means and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.