A. The lower court’s punishment of Defendant 2 (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Since the victim’s misunderstanding of the fact-finding 1 is likely to have suffered from a traffic accident or at least a traffic accident affected the blood transfusion, the causal relationship between the instant traffic accident and the victim’s death is recognized.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, on the following grounds: (a) the victim suffered death due to the occurrence of the victim’s blood transfusion, waste collection, and smoking pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary tion, and thus, has a substantial causal relationship between the traffic accident of this case and the traffic accident of this case and the waste collection.

There is no evidence of seeing that the blood of the drinking beer and the blood of the drinking beer is likely to have occurred due to the progress of the food beer of the victim. In particular, due to the traffic accident of this case, the blood of the drinking beer and the blood of the drinking beer has been discharged from the drinking beer or the traffic accident has been in advance of the smoking beer.

For the reason that there is no evidence to view that there is no evidence, not guilty of the part of the facts charged of this case.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by mistake of facts.

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing by Defendant and the prosecutor, and where the sentencing by the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence by the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the difference between the views of the appellate court and the judgment by the first instance court is somewhat different from that of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The foregoing legal doctrine is followed.