The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence of two years of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of attending the compliance driving lecture is too unreasonable for one year of imprisonment sentenced by the court below.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and that the degree of injury suffered by the victims due to the instant accident is not much severe, and that the vehicle driven by the Defendant is covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance, that is, all the victims agree with the victims, that the Defendant is a family member to support the Defendant, and that the Defendant is expected to suffer some difficulties in performing community service and attending lectures when he is sentenced to a judgment.

However, the crime of this case was committed in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the defendant's act of driving a motor vehicle while driving the motor vehicle and did not take any measure to inflict injury on the victims; and (b) the case was that the victim escaped without any reason; and (c) the defendant also confirmed the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case that the defendant escaped at the site by enhancing speed without clear reasons; (d) the defendant was not aware of the reason why he left the site of this case; (b) the circumstance before and after the traffic accident of this case is not good, such as suspicion that the defendant does not drink, etc.; (c) the defendant has the history of punishment for driving a motor vehicle and driving without a driver's license; and (d) other circumstances, including the defendant's age, environment, family relationship, occupation, the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is groundless, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.