The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant asserts that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as the grounds for appeal of this case are too unreasonable.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, and the fact that the defendant left the scene after the accident, but returned to the site and returned to the site, and that he was in the accident, and that the victim's bereaved family members and the defendant agreed to do so, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the following is ruled again

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the criminal facts of the defendant recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they shall be quoted by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Application of Statutes

1. Article 5-3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime;

1. As to the crime of selective punishment, the limited imprisonment and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, each choice of imprisonment shall be applied;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 1,

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution;