A. The lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 12 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The victim, at the time of the instant accident, cross-sectioned the road set up at the center of the eight-way line at the time of the instant accident without permission. Such an act by the victim was one of the causes of the instant accident, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident paid to the bereaved family members an agreement of KRW 130 million, and the Defendant recognized the instant crime from the investigative agency, and there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime in favor of the Defendant.

On the other hand, while driving a new wall, the Defendant committed a serious consequence of the death of the victim due to negligence that did not well see the right and the left and right while driving the new wall. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the bereaved family members of the victim up to now, and the Defendant committed the instant crime even during the suspended execution period due to the crime of Lee Jong-chul.

Taking into account the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, health, sexual conduct, environment, means and consequence, etc. after the crime, the lower court’s punishment was too heavy or unhued so far as it exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion in sentencing.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since each appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in entirety in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.