Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant filed an appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, or unreasonable sentencing, but withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the second trial date.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment without prison labor and two years of suspended execution, community service order 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Since the Defendant neglected his/her duty of care and caused the injury or death of victims due to occupational negligence that entered news reports by neglecting his/her duty of care as stated in the judgment below, as such, the crime liability is not less and less, and the fact that the victim F’s bereaved family members did not reach an agreement with the victim F is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes when the defendant was in a trial, there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, the victim E's injury is not more severe, the damage recovery was made by the comprehensive automobile insurance for the defendant's vehicle, the damage recovery was made to a certain extent, and the mechanical breakdown that cannot identify the cause of the defendant's vehicle can be seen as a cause of the accident in favor of the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., that there is no special change in circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. It is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. Conclusion.