2. There is no significant change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because there is no particular new sentencing data in the judgment of the trial court, and even though the victim's bereaved family members want to be punished by severe punishment against the defendant, there are circumstances where the victim's bereaved family members did not agree with the victim's bereaved family members. However, the sentencing reasons indicated in the records of this case include the reason for sentencing, especially the fact that the defendant's vehicle is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and the defendant is engaged in driving a food waste collection vehicle for the family's livelihood with the age of 6

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the instant traffic accident caused, the error of the lower court is in depth, and efforts are made to reach an agreement with the bereaved family members of the victim, the fact that there was no previous conviction except for the punishment of fines twice due to this type of crime, and the Defendant’s vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance policy, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too uneasible.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.