2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake; (b) there was no history of punishment heavier than the suspension of execution; and (c) the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim M after the sentence of

However, the instant traffic accident was caused by the Defendant’s failure to perform his duty of care, such as entering the intersection, due to the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her duty of care, such as entering the intersection while making a telephone call while driving an urban bus, and led to a very serious result of the Defendant’s death or injury of 13 victims. In particular, two of the five victims on board the instant truck due to the said accident were killed, and two of the five victims were killed, who were on board the truck due to the said accident, and the two were seriously injured by the need of 16 weeks of care, and the damage was recovered by agreement with the victims of the instant truck vehicle or up to the depth of the case.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, motive, background, means, method and consequence of the commission of the crime, circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, and criminal records, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s allegation of the above unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

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.