The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected in the judgment of the court below (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the demotion of compliance driving 40 hours).

2. The lower court determined the sentence by taking into account the following circumstances as revealed in the lower judgment’s “reasons for sentencing”.

Unfavorable sentencing factors: The degree of injury does not seem to be somewhat strict. In addition to the accident, it is weak to comply with traffic order such as drinking, driving without a license, etc., in addition to the accident.

b. Sentencing factors: (a) an agreement with the victim E and F; (b) a comprehensive insurance policy; (c) an error is recognized; (d) an appropriate sentence is determined as ordered by taking into account the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances; (b) there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court following the pronouncement of the lower judgment; (c) the instant traffic accident occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence in violation of the traffic regulations and duties; (d) the degree of the Defendant’s violation of the traffic laws and regulations and duties; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc.; and (e) the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable, taking into account the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age and duty of care. In particular, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s participation time in compliance driving is excessive, but it appears that it is necessary to have been demoted for a certain period of time, and thus, the Defendant’s order of compliance is dismissed.