Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for ten months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

However, although the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the defendant's occupational negligence and caused the serious result of the victim's death, the defendant's negligence at night is recognized. However, the defendant's negligence seems to exist in the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case or the expansion of damage by crossinging the road in front of the tunnel where crosswalks are not installed at night. The victim's negligence appears to exist in the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case, the vehicle operated by the defendant is a comprehensive automobile insurance, and the victim's bereaved family members do not want punishment at the investigation stage, and there is no record of criminal punishment, etc. taking into account various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, and the occurrence of the traffic accident of this case, it is recognized that the court below's punishment (social service order of 10 months, probation two years and 80 hours) is too unreasonable

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the entries of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Special Cases concerning the Selection of Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Selection of imprisonment without prison labor;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;