A. The lower court’s sentence (ten months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, 40 hours of order to attend a compliance driving lecture) is too unreasonable.

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

2. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the public prosecutor and the defendant, the defendant's error is recognized and against the defendant, the victim F and I do not want punishment against the defendant, the city bus operated by the defendant is affiliated with K Union, the defendant was dead from the accident of this case, and the defendant did not have any criminal history since 1987, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant caused a traffic accident by negligence in violation of the signal, the three victims suffered an injury, and the fact that the victim has not yet agreed with the victim H is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, health status, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions appearing in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to be too light or heavy beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor and the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. If so, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.