A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (10 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime and divided the fact of the Defendant, the fact that the said cargo vehicle driven by the Defendant is covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy, etc., and the fact that there was a result that the Defendant could not follow the death of the victim due to the Defendant’s occupational negligence, and the fact that the Defendant started the vehicle without confirming whether there was a person standing the above vehicle in favor of the Defendant, such as the fact that there was a favorable condition for the Defendant,

In light of the materials submitted in the trial at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing conditions stated in the records of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are not deemed to be excessive or unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since all of the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are groundless.