The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s punishment (one year and four months) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant appears to have the view of recognizing and opposing the instant crime; that the Defendant is obliged to support the children who cannot engage in economic activities due to his wife and the quality; and that the instant Maritime Vehicle is affiliated with the H Mutual Aid Association.

On the other hand, if the defendant is unable to stop the vehicle driving signal at the time of the instant case while shocking the victim who dried the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signal, it is very gross negligence, and the result is very significant due to the death of the victim.

The parents of the victim complained of the case that they lost out of the child and suffered from extreme pain, and wanting to punish the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, environment, family relations, circumstances after the crime, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.