The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the court below (10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The court below set a sentence against the defendant in consideration of the following circumstances: the defendant was a first offender, the defendant was subscribed to a motor vehicle comprehensive insurance, support three children including those with intellectual disability 1, and reflects the wrong; the defendant was negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care on the front side and the left side while overtaking, and the victim was unable to recover consciousness until now due to two damage caused by the above accident; and the family members of the victim wanted to be punished by the defendant's severe punishment.

C. Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of the present case and the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.