2. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s negligence of neglecting the duty of care caused the occurrence of the instant accident, and the result of the victim’s death, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not weak, and the Defendant’s failure to reach an agreement with the victim’s bereaved family up to the trial is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, there is no specific criminal power except for the defendant who has been punished once by a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the place of the accident in this case should have placed safety personnel in the construction site around the construction site, but such safety measures have not been sufficiently taken. There are circumstances that can be considered in the situation of the accident, such as the occurrence of the accident, such as the occurrence of the accident where the victim was boomed by the victim, and the victim's bereaved family members are expected to have recovered part of the damage due to industrial accident compensation insurance, etc. in favor of the defendant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, circumstances after committing the crime, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as being too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.