2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant, while driving a Otoba, she shocked the victim with the unauthorized crossing of the road, and she erobba and ebbbbbba in the ebbba, resulting in the ebbbbbbba that requires approximately six weeks of treatment. The Defendant also contributed to the fault of the victim without the unauthorized crossing of the road

Medical expenses, etc. are deemed to have been paid to the victim under the liability insurance policy.

Before about 20 years, the defendant has been sentenced to criminal punishment due to traffic accidents, and has lived in good faith without any particular criminal history.

The defendant, as well as the disabled, has raised two children by running a restaurant business, which has recently been faced with considerable economic difficulties due to business depression and debts.

On the other hand, the victim did not agree or receive a letter.

Furthermore, even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial court were without significant changes in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, the sentencing of the original court does not seem to be unreasonable because the defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. as stated in the records of this case, are too unreasonable considering the following circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.