The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (10 months without prison labor) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, 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 considered (i) the Defendant’s favorable circumstances; (ii) the depth and radius of the instant crime; (iii) the Defendant’s vehicle is being covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; (iv) the Defendant has no other penal force except three times; (v) the Defendant has old and economically difficult circumstances; and (v) the Defendant has a family member who should support; (v) the Defendant was at a disadvantage; (v) the occurrence of a sudden shock incident due to the negligence of the Defendant’s speed balc, and the result of the victim’s death; and (v) the victim’s bereaved family member’s severe punishment was determined by taking account of the following factors: (v) the victim’s personal history and condition of the Defendant’s death; and (v) the Defendant’s life and condition of the Defendant’s death.

As above, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope, taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the proceedings of the present case, and there is no other special change in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too excessive and unfair.

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

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.