The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment without prison labor for five months and one year of suspended execution) 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the crime is recognized and against the law, the fact that there is no record of punishment other than punishment being imposed as a fine on July 23, 199, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by a comprehensive insurance, and the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant by agreement with the victim.

However, the fact that the victim suffered from an injury, such as a pelle which requires about 10 weeks of treatment, and the degree of the injury is serious, and the driver of a crosswalk which is not signaled due to neglect of the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk is disadvantageous to the defendant's operation and room that are sufficient for the victim.

In light of the above circumstances, the lower court determined a punishment in light of the above circumstances, and submitted normal materials, such as the details of the Defendant’s purchase of comprehensive insurance policies, in the first instance court, but this was already reflected in the sentencing hearing process of the lower court, and there was no change in

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, as well as various other circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and theories of change, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable, and is excessively heavy, beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

The defendant's argument in sentencing is not accepted.

3. 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.