A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (under 8 months) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

The fact that the defendant has agreed with the victims who suffered the injury, the first crime, and the reflection are favorable to the defendant.

However, in this case, the defendant's negligence in violation of the signal died of one victim, and the two victims (one full-time three weeks, one full-time fourteen weeks, and one full-time 14 weeks) were injured, and the fact that the vehicle of the defendant is not covered by a comprehensive insurance and does not reach an agreement with the bereaved family of the deceased victim, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, environment, means, and consequence, etc., the sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime is committed, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.