The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two 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 was not sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or more severe punishment for the same crime, and that the vehicle driven by the defendant is covered by comprehensive insurance and that the victim D reached an agreement with the victim, 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 facts charged by the defendant and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and selection of imprisonment with labor for each crime;

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;

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act;