All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The misapprehension of the legal principles and the death of the victim of misunderstanding the facts constitute a case where the victim of misunderstanding the legal principles and the death of the victim of misunderstanding the facts is not caused by the natural aggravation without the intervention of the other force due to the first accident of the defendant A, but due to the preceding accident or the second accident of the defendant B, and thus, the defendant A does not have a direct causal relation between the first accident caused by the above defendant and the death of the victim.

In addition, at the time of the accident, Defendant A was unable to fully recognize the fact that the person was infinite and the fact that the victim was injured.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of suspended sentence in two and half years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) Of the damaged parts of the victim’s misunderstanding of fact, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant B’s second accident was caused by the misunderstanding of the victim’s damage, and it was proven that the victim was alive at the time of the second accident to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt about the existence of the victim.

In light of the autopsy report, etc., even if the victim did not undergo the second accident by Defendant B, it is sufficiently predicted that the death was caused by Defendant A’s first accident. Therefore, the relationship between Defendant B’s second accident and the victim’s death cannot be recognized.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of suspended sentence in two and half years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

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

Judgment

A. The Defendants alleged the existence of the preceding accident are likely to have a separate prior accident, etc. to the victim prior to the shock accident caused by them.

The argument is asserted.

According to CCTV images around the accident site, the defendants around the road of this case 23:4.