All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of a mistake of fact (the defendant) is not likely to be seen as a utility pole, but is not negligent in the defendant as much as the traffic accident occurred by driving a motor bicycle at a rapid speed using the motor device.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, while the Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., traffic accidents, which occurred in around 09:0 and weather conditions are clear, so there was no obstacle that restricts the Defendant’s view and the need to view to the extent that the victim could not be found due to electric telegrams, particularly as follows.

According to the fact that it is difficult to see, according to the accident video CD images, the victim moved the bicycle ped at the time of the accident, and did not utilize the engine, and considering the fact that the speed is not fast, the defendant can be recognized as the negligence caused by negligence of duty in front of the accident.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is difficult to accept.

B. The Defendant, who caused the death of the victim, thereby causing the injury to the victim and his/her bereaved family members.

On the other hand, the defendant paid 30 million won to bereaved family members of the victim, and the bereaved family members of the victim do not want the punishment of the defendant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and consequences as shown in the records and pleadings, all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission of crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion and is not deemed to be excessive or unreasonable.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the defendant and prosecutor's argument.

3. The conclusion is that the defendant and the prosecutor respectively.