The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (4 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment of the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the Defendant, the primary offender, and the vehicle is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant caused the instant accident by negligence in the course of the safety zone where entry is prohibited; (b) the degree of the injury suffered by the victim (as much as 12 weeks); (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the crime; (d) the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc.; and (e) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court; and (e) if the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents). However, in the application of the judgment of the court below, the “Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents” is obvious that it is a clerical error in the “Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents