The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and that the Defendant voluntarily surrendered to the police station upon the solicitation of his/her family members, can be considered in sentencing.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant was at the time when the accident occurred and was above the speed of the crosswalk, it seems that he did not pay a minimum attention to driving, and that the defendant continued to operate the taxi without any confirmation or relief measures, even though the defendant seems to have been aware that he was shocking immediately after the accident, and the defendant could not find out any form of breaking up the front part of the taxi due to the accident, such as the fact that the defendant seems to have suffered damage to the taxi, and that it is difficult for him to find out or reflect the criminal liability after the escape. Since the defendant is a specialist as a taxi driver, more severe punishment is required for the escape act after the accident. The deceased victim was separated from his spouse for 6 years prior to the accident and has yet to be sufficiently independent, and the victim's bereaved family members were the most difficult, and thus, the victim's children, who were the victim's bereaved family members, were the victim's parents, and the victim's family members could not have any strong mental suffering from the victim's self-denunciation.