A. The Defendant is a social worker with no criminal power at all, and the Defendant caused the instant traffic accident by using a signal instead of getting out while working 24-hour shift work, but all of the facts of the instant crime were found to have been committed, and the victim G and H did not want punishment against the Defendant and agreed with the victim D and the bereaved family members of high-tech. In light of the above, the lower court’s punishment (8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. In the instant case, the public prosecutor tried to punish the victims by asserting that the Defendant caused a traffic accident by negligence in violation of the signal while driving a car, and caused a death while receiving medical treatment from the victim netF. In light of the Defendant’s negligence and the degree of injury to the victims, the case is very serious in light of the victim’s negligence and the degree of injury to the victims, and the victim D, even though the victims suffered a serious pain due to the instant traffic accident, did not receive a proper illness or apology from the Defendant who was urgent to agree before the insurance company. Therefore, the lower court’s suspended sentence against the Defendant is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the judgment, the degree of violation of the duty of care of the defendant causing the accident of this case is very serious, and the degree of injury of the victims is not weak, and the injured driver D prepared the remaining agreement that the defendant thought that the defendant would be punished for his/her response at the court below, but the defendant's attitude in the process of preparing the agreement is a matter of question, and it is a factor of sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

(a) .