All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The court below found the defendant and the prosecutor guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the injury caused by dangerous driving), the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license), the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license), the violation of the Road Traffic Guarantee Act, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the injury caused by dangerous driving) among the facts charged in the instant case. The court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the injury caused by dangerous driving) and did not dismiss the public prosecution separately from the order. The part of the court below's conviction against the defendant and the prosecutor who did not appeal against the guilty portion is also reversed from the judgment of the court below, but the part of the court below which did not appeal against the defendant and the defense against the attack, and thus, is exempted from the object of de facto trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2008).

2. According to the records of this case regarding the Defendant’s appeal, even if the Defendant received a notice of receipt of the records of trial on June 29, 2018, failed to submit a statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the date of receipt of the records of trial, and the petition of appeal does not state the grounds for appeal, and the lower judgment cannot be found even if examining the judgment below.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

A. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months suspension, one hundred and twenty hours of community service, and forty hours of instruction of compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the following is examined.