A. Defendant (1) The instant accident was not caused by Defendant’s intrusion on the central line, but caused by the damaged vehicle’s intrusion on the central line, so there was no occupational negligence on the part of Defendant.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the aforementioned assertion of mistake, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by making a detailed statement on the following matters in the summary column of evidence. Examining the judgment of the lower court in comparison with the records, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendant committed the instant traffic accident by impairing the central line that the Defendant is driving without a drinking license, and the crime is not good.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration is high and the degree of injury to the victim D is serious.

The defendant has been punished for a fine due to the same kind of drinking driving.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant agreed with the victims, and the victims submitted a written application for the birth of the defendant's wife.

Defendant

Driving vehicles are covered by comprehensive motor vehicle insurance.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable as it is too heavy. Therefore, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so ordered.