The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment without prison labor for one year, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of social service) is too unreasonable.

2. However, there are extenuating circumstances to consider the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, the vehicle driven at the time is covered by a comprehensive insurance, the bereaved family of the victim has reached an agreement with the bereaved family, and the Defendant has no criminal record other than the following criminal records:

However, this case was caused by negligence on the part of the defendant's driver, causing death by shocking the damaged person who was in the vicinity of the crosswalk, and the defendant's responsibility is heavy because of the serious result.

Moreover, even though the Defendant had a record of being punished by a fine of one million won due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents on December 30, 2016, the Defendant committed the same crime in the same manner as the instant crime only for about five months.

In the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the above circumstances and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Meanwhile, the Defendant sought a reduction or exemption if community service hours are excessive. However, in light of the nature and content of each of the instant crimes, Defendant’s criminal records, etc., the Defendant needs to have an opportunity to reflect his/her behavior and recover his/her sense of social responsibility through community service. Although the community service order for 160 hours may somewhat obstruct the Defendant’s living, it may interfere with the Defendant’s life through consultation with the protective observation office after the conclusion of the judgment.