The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year, by Defendant B and C, for eight months, respectively.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment without prison labor, Defendant B, and Defendant C: 8 months of imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

B. Each of the above types sentenced by the court below by the prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

2. As to the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing, it is recognized that: (a) the Defendants’ negligence was serious; (b) the victim’s death was caused; (c) the victim was not the young child under the age of 1 at the time of the instant accident; (d) the bereaved family’s influence and suppression, and the bereaved family’s bereaved family’s influencing and love, without any prior notice; and (e) the bereaved family’s mental suffering that may have to be fluently borne by the bereaved family; and (b) the Defendant B did not agree with the bereaved family of the victim.

However, all the Defendants divided their mistakes into primary offenders, and the vehicle involved in the accident of this case is covered by the automobile comprehensive insurance policy, with insurance money of KRW 375 million paid to the bereaved family members of the victim. At the original trial, Defendant A deposited KRW 52 million for the bereaved family members of the victim, Defendant B, and C deposited KRW 5 million in each of the above deposited money, Defendant A and C agreed with the bereaved family members of the victim by additionally paying KRW 30 million separate from the above deposited money, and Defendant B additionally deposited KRW 15 million for the bereaved family members of the victim. In addition, considering the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means and result of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, each of the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants is too unfair.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is with merit, while the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendants' appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is reversed, and the pleading is followed again.