2. The fact that the defendant's negligence of driving a vehicle exceeding the restricted speed by violating the signal at the inquiry intersection is serious, and the fact that the result of the death of two victims of the instant accident is very heavy, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, there is the negligence on the part of the victim driving the vehicle in violation of the signal at the intersection, the defendant is the primary offender who has no previous record, the defendant paid the 60 million won on the part of the victim and agreed to pay the 60 million won on the part of the victim, the victim wanting to find the defendant's wife against the defendant, and the fact that the defendant has recognized and reflected the error is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the application of the judgment of the court below to two types of "Article 3(1), the proviso of Article 3(2)1, Article 268 of the Criminal Act" is "Article 3(1), Article 268 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1), the proviso of Article 3(2)1 and 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act," and "one of the victims shall be corrected to correct "two of the victims" as "two of the victims."