2. The crime of this case, based on the judgment, was committed by the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, while the Defendant driving a vehicle in which normal driving is difficult, thereby causing injury to the victim F, and resulting in the death of the victim H, who is the passenger of the Defendant’s vehicle. In light of the content of the crime and the degree of damage, the liability for the crime is very heavy, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level was high at the time, and the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant are recognized.

However, it is reasonable to respect the defendant's confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in his life for a considerable period of time, the defendant does not want to be punished by the defendant under a mutual consent with the victim F and H's bereaved family members. In particular, the victim H's bereaved family members want to be punished by the defendant, the defendant has no criminal history exceeding the fine, the defendant has no criminal history, in our criminal litigation law that takes the court-oriented principle and direct principle, the sentencing determination has the unique area of the first deliberation and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first trial and the first trial does not change in the conditions of sentencing and the first trial sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The court below's unfavorable circumstances against the recognized defendant do not fall under any special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the decision of the court below was rendered, and it does not seem that the court below's unfair sentence against the defendant was too unfair.

3. Conclusion, prosecutor.