The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable, which is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant confessions the facts constituting the offense and reflects the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, the first offender, and the fact that the Defendant transferred the ownership of the vehicle driven when committing the instant crime to another person.

On the other hand, this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant that the defendant was faced with the central line in which the defendant is about to inflict damage on the vehicle parked in the front bank and caused the victim's injury of 6 weeks of care, and the degree of breach of duty of care is large and sufficient to cause more serious human damage.

Meanwhile, in full view of the fact that permission for extension of the period of stay in the form, language, etc. under the provisions related to the Immigration Control Act has the nature of a permanent authorized disposition that grants the applicant the right to continue to stay in excess of the initial period of stay, it is reasonable to deem that the permission for extension of the period of stay is an discretionary act that determines whether to grant the permission in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of stay, influence on the public interest, etc. (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu52581, Nov. 18, 2014). In full view of the record, there is no evidence to readily conclude that permission for extension of the period of stay, which is the discretionary act of an administrative agency, is denied solely on the ground that the Defendant and the defense counsel were punished in excess

In addition, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking into account all the circumstances, and taking into account various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, it is unfair that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.