2. The fact that the Defendant caused the instant traffic accident by negligence that did not fulfill his duty of care on the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right of the Defendant’s death is recognized.

However, the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the facts charged and reflects the victim’s negligence. The traffic accident of this case also overlaps with the victim’s negligence, and the Defendant agreed with the bereaved family members by paying a certain amount of money before the victim’s death, even if the victim died in the future, even if not clearly agreed in the above agreement, at the time, the victim suffered injury during about three months and the attitude seems to have been de factoed. The Defendant additionally deposited a certain amount for the bereaved family members after the victim’s death; the Defendant additionally deposited a certain amount of money for the bereaved family members; the Defendant was the primary offender who had no record of punishment before the instant case; the vehicle was covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is unnecessary and it is not deemed unfair.

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