2. It is recognized that the Defendant led to the instant crime, and that the taxi operated by the Defendant is affiliated with the Federation of taxi transport business associations nationwide.

However, there was no particular evidence to prove that the occurrence of the victim's serious result from the accident of this case led to death, and that the defendant agreed with the bereaved family members of the victim or endeavored to recover the damage, and otherwise, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

In light of the circumstances to be assessed, or the fact that there is no new evidence to be presented during the deliberation of sentencing at the political party (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee, the traffic crime group, the type 2 of the crime of ordinary traffic accidents (accident of traffic accidents), the area of recommendation, the scope of the recommended sentence (from August to October), the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstance before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.