The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant in violation of the signal, resulting in serious injury to the victim who caused an accident requiring 12 weeks of care, and the quality of the crime is not that of the victim.

However, the defendant all recognized the crime of this case, and there was no record of committing any crime until the transfer of this case.

Since the vehicles of the defendant are covered by comprehensive insurance, the damage of the victim is considered to have been fully recovered, and the defendant separately paid 3.64 million won to the victim and the damaged person does not want to be punished by the defendant.

In addition, if the sentence of the court below, which sentenced the suspension of the execution of imprisonment without prison labor, is maintained, there is a risk of dismissal of the defendant in the workplace, and such social constraints that the defendant should bear due to criminal conduct, should also be considered as an element of sentencing, so that it is consistent with the principle of individualization of the application of punishment, such disadvantages in the status should also be considered.

In addition, there may be many cases where fines were sentenced in cases similar to the instant case and the sentencing conditions, and in light of the general sentencing cases in the crime causing the injury of traffic accidents as above, it does not consider that the risk of occupational loss is the risk of occupational loss.

Even if a fine is imposed in this case, it cannot be viewed as a minor punishment.

In full view of all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of similar cases, including these circumstances, the lower court’s sentence that suspended execution of imprisonment without prison labor is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing has merit.

3. Conclusion.