The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended execution in August, and forty hours of compliance driving) is too unreasonable; and

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court records and records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, as the Defendant’s negligence caused a traffic accident by violating the traffic signal while driving a normal driving condition, and thus, the Defendant was sentenced to the said punishment in light of the following: (a) the victim was agreed upon; (b) the vehicle comprehensive insurance was committed with the victims; and (c) the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment; and (d) there were no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing at the trial;