The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment and forty hours of lecture attendance order for compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized and against each of the instant crimes; (b) the victim’s injury is not relatively heavy; (c) the victim does not want to punish the Defendant; (d) the victim does not have any history of having been punished by a fine exceeding the same type of crime; and (e) the scope of punishment recommended by the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines (the scope of recommendations) (one to eight months [the scope of recommendations] in general traffic accident, according to the sentencing guidelines of the first instance court (one month to eight months) [1 months] area where the injury occurred while the Defendant did not comply with the request for sentencing of the Committee, such as the case where the Defendant did not respond to the request for sentencing, such as the case where the Defendant did not respond to drinking drinking.

The sentence against the defendant was determined.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by fully taking into account the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court up to the trial. Therefore, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so ordered as per Disposition.