A. The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is excessively unreasonable.

2. The fact that the judgment defendant recognized his/her crime and reflects his/her criminal act, and that there is no record of punishment heavier than that of the same kind of crime is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed in violation of the signals while the defendant was driving a car in a state of 0.142% alcohol concentration in blood while driving the car in a state of 0.142%, and the crime of this case is committed against the victim who dried the crosswalk, resulting in the victim's death and the other victim's death and suffered heavy attention of 12 weeks.

The defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victims.

Since the defendant's vehicle is covered only by liability insurance, it seems difficult to recover actual damage to the victims.

In addition, taking into account the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.