2. It is recognized that circumstances such as the Defendant’s endeavor to recover damage, such as deposit of part of the amount of damage for victims, the fact that the Defendant’s comprehensive vehicle insurance policy in the vehicle driven by the Defendant appears to have been partially recovered from damage, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

However, according to the circumstances such as the violation of signal and the violation of duty of care beyond the limit and speed, the defendant caused the instant traffic accident. A significant degree of accidents in light of the degree of personal damage and physical damage caused by the instant traffic accident, many victims have occurred, the injury suffered by the victims is very heavy, and the victims have been strongly punished due to their failure to agree with the victims, it is reasonable to place the defendant on severe punishment.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, there is no special change in circumstances that determine the sentencing conditions different from the lower court’s punishment, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor 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.