The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable, and the Defendant added a mistake of fact to the effect that the instant accident occurred due to a sudden exhaustion on the wind that the Defendant was divingd from the vehicle, and that the Defendant was not aware of the occurrence of the accident, after the period for submitting the written grounds for appeal.

However, this cannot serve as a legitimate reason for appeal as a assertion after the lapse of the period for appeal, and even if I have ex officio the above assertion, if I consider the movement of vehicle before and after the accident, the degree of shock caused by the accident, and the degree of damage to the glass window, etc., the defendant shocked the victims while driving the vehicle, and the escape was sufficiently recognized.

Judgment

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The health unit and the first instance court did not submit new materials for sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, since there is no change in the conditions of sentencing.

The defendant has already been sentenced two times to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of a flight vehicle, the crime of this case was committed during the suspended sentence period, the victims' injury was serious, and the accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case by taking a prompt procedure at the court in the first instance.

When considering the fact that it is difficult to obtain, such as the assertion, the defendant is seriously opposed to the crime of this case.

In full view of the factors revealed in the course of the records and arguments of the instant case, including the fact that it is difficult to see that the sentencing of the lower court was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant-appellant.