The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is no proximate causal relation between Defendant’s excessive fault and the occurrence of the instant traffic accident or the injury of the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (4 months of imprisonment without prison labor, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below as to the assertion that there was no proximate causal relation between the defendant's fault who proceeded in excess of the speed limit and the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case, the health team, the trial court, and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant, even though the speed limit of the location where the vehicle operated by the defendant and the victim collisioned is 60 km a speed limit of about 90 km a speed, the defendant could have avoided the accident sufficiently by discovering the victim if he had proceeded with the speed limit of the defendant properly and operated the brake or steering gear. However, it is reasonable to view that the defendant could not avoid the accident properly after finding the victim due to the negligence of speed exceeding 30 km a speed limit of speed limit. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the causal relationship, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the defendant's defense counsel has submitted a written opinion to the effect that the whole indictment of this case is recognized after the conclusion of the pleading of this case). Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The fact that there is no penalty power exceeding a fine on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and that the victim’s negligence also contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant committed a second offense despite the record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the degree of negligence of the defendant and the crime of this case.