The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant reflects; (b) the victims have agreed with the victims; and (c) the vehicle involved in an accident is covered by a comprehensive

However, these circumstances were reflected in the sentencing revealed in the lower court, and the lower court selected imprisonment and sentenced the lowest sentence after discretionary mitigation.

Since 2016, the Defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment on June 7, 2017 due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after-accident), and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after-accident) but has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment two times since 2016, he/she is driving in a prolonged state to the extent that normal driving is difficult again at the time when six months have not passed since the grace period expired.

The traffic accident has caused.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the motive and background of the crime, means of crime, age, character and conduct, environment, family relation, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments and records, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is excessively unreasonable because it goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

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