The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are as follows: (a) the defendant, who made a confession at an investigative agency to commit the instant crime; (b) the victims want to leave the Defendant’s prior wife by agreement with the victims; and (c) the vehicle of the defendant was covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance.

However, this case is a case where the defendant escaped after causing a traffic accident by shocking the damaged vehicle while driving without a license. The crime of this case is not very good in the investigative agency that the defendant committed the crime of this case, even though he had been sentenced five times or more by drinking and driving without a license, even though he had the record of having been sentenced five times or more by the act of drinking and driving without a license, and other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, situation before and after the crime, etc., and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (dominated Vehicle) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Non-accidental Measures) recommended in the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee, referring to the summary of the sentencing in Japan.

It is so indicated that it will be a lawsuit.

Basic crimes and concurrent crimes: Transport Crime Group, Type 1 (Desertion after Injury), Special Mitigation Measures: Scope of Recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months to 10 months: 6 months to 1 year and 3 months: (i) whether to suspend the execution of imprisonment or not 1/2 of the upper limit of concurrent crimes for basic crimes / In full view of the positive reasons, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is judged to be appropriate, and it is not deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.