2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant reflects his/her mistake; (b) the Defendant agreed with his/her bereaved family members; and (c) the Defendant took into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant that the Defendant subscribed to comprehensive insurance for traffic accident victims; (d) the Defendant entered into the Republic of Korea a large number of foreign women during the period during which the period of suspension of execution; (b) the Defendant engaged in sexual traffic intermediary business in the form of a business trip by using a vehicle; (c) the size of the business was significant; and (d) the Defendant led to the death of the victim by driving a vehicle in a drinking state; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) it is difficult to deem that the sentence of the lower court excessively deviates from the reasonable scope of discretion, taking

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