A. In regard to Defendant A, the punishment (a fine of KRW 15 million) imposed by the lower court against Defendant A is too unfilled and unfair.

B. Defendant B, the driver of the city bus (definite) entered the intersection, in violation of the duty of care to stop at the stop line without reducing speed, even though the electric signal was changed from approximately 32 meters to yellow signal at the time of the instant case, the Defendant, who was the driver of the city bus at the time of the instant case.

Accordingly, since the accident of this case occurred because the defendant could not avoid sudden delay, there is a proximate causal relation between the defendant's act and the occurrence of the accident of this case.

However, the court below found Defendant B not guilty. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.

2. The Defendant’s assertion against Defendant A caused the instant accident in violation of the signal and resulting in the death of the victim, which led to a serious result, and the quality of the crime is not exceptionally considered.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects on the Defendant; (b) there is no specific penalty power other than that subject to a fine in 2003; (c) the Defendant’s vehicle is subscribed to a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; (d) the victim’s bereaved family members and the victim’s bereaved family members agreed to agree with the instant accident; and (c) other factors that may be somewhat considered in light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (d) the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) all the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings, including the circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope, taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings; and (e) there is no special change of circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

(a) this part;