The instant crime caused a traffic accident involving the victim’s vehicle by intentionally taking advantage of large cargo vehicles such as the Defendant’s vehicle (total weight of 14.5 tons) on the expressway in which the vehicle is running along high speed. The risk may generally infringe not only on the life of the victim’s passenger but also on the life of another passenger, and also may infringe on the function of the main expressway due to the frequency of the accident. This may not be considered when considering the outcome of criticism of the Defendant’s driving of the cargo from the early 20 seconds to the early 14.5 tons, where the vehicle intentionally taking advantage of a small cargo vehicle such as the Defendant’s vehicle (total weight of 1 ton).

Even when considering the circumstances where the defendant's maximum consideration was given, the defendant who committed the crime of this case with a large amount of punishment performance does not have any intention to avoid any significant criminal responsibility corresponding thereto, and the defendant exceeded the scope of sentencing discretion to the extent that the sentence of the court below, which was determined by comprehensively taking account of the various sentencing conditions against the defendant based on these circumstances, is too unreasonable.

In addition, there is no change in the sentencing conditions to the extent that the punishment should be mitigated, such as the victim's failure to receive a letter from the appellate court up to the appellate court.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, so the Criminal Procedure Act.