2. The sentencing factors favorable to the defendant are the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime, and that the victim seems to receive considerable amount of compensation for damage since he/she subscribed to a comprehensive insurance policy.

However, in this case, while the defendant neglected and proceeded with the stop signal, the victim who dried the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signal was shocked to cause serious injury in need of 8 weeks of treatment, and thus, illegal in light of the circumstances of the crime. Nevertheless, the victim did not agree with the victim, and the fact that there is no change in circumstances that can be considered in sentencing after the judgment of the court below is an element of sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, considering the various factors of sentencing prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, criminal records, health conditions, economic situation, etc., the sentence of the court below 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.