A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment without prison labor and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first instance judgment regarding sentencing, and after the appellate court’s ex post facto heart character, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the lower court, namely, the death of the victim caused the instant crime; (d) the records of the Defendant’s punishment for the same crime are included four times, including suspended sentence; (d) the victim recognized the instant crime; (d) the victim was crossing the road of not less than 20 meters wide at the time of the instant accident without permission; and (e) the circumstance and circumstances that the Defendant did not change the victim’s health and living environment after the occurrence of the instant accident; and (e.

3. As such, each appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.