2. The crime of this case committed by the defendant while driving a vehicle in violation of traffic signals, led to the death of the victim, and the degree and result of the negligence is heavy, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is seriously against the crime of this case, the defendant's bereaved family members do not want punishment against the defendant, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by comprehensive insurance, and the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal history at the stage of investigation, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime was committed, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, family relationship, occupation, etc., and all the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and deemed unfair, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Etc., “Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents,” among the application of the law of the court below, is obvious that the “Article 3(1) and the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents,” and thus, ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.