A. The sentence of the lower court (one year’s imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the defendant's decision on the grounds for appeal is against his mistake and does not repeat again, and that the defendant is the primary offender, and that some damage is expected to be recovered due to the subscription of a comprehensive insurance policy, is favorable to the defendant.

Meanwhile, the instant crime committed by the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle on an expressway in the daytime, caused the death of the victim who was on the road due to neglecting his/her duty at all times. As such, the degree, circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s occupational negligence, and the consequences of the crime, the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the bereaved family members, or did not have been used by the bereaved family members, and the victim’s bereaved family members want to be punished by the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant case’s records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.