The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The facts that the defendant recognized his mistake and subscribed to a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy are favorable circumstances, but the crime of this case is committed on the other hand, while the defendant, without obtaining a driver's license, runs away without disclosing his identity despite being aware of the victim who was under the age of 7 who was standing on the crosswalk in violation of the signal in the children protection zone by negligence in violation of the signal in the children protection zone. The result of the defendant's negligence and crime was very serious. The defendant's fault and crime was committed for a long time, but there was a past record of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, but there was a history of punishment two times prior to drinking, and there was no agreement with the victim's bereaved family members on November 7, 2014. However, even if the compulsory adjustment was established in the civil case with the victim's bereaved family members, the actual damage recovery was not made up until now, the defendant's argument that the sentencing of this case is unreasonable and it is not reasonable.

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.