2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the defendant's mistake in driving a motorcycle driving in violation of the signal, resulting in the injury of the victim by shocking the victim who dried the crosswalk pursuant to the pedestrian signals, such as the closed-down frame at the bottom of the necessary frame that requires approximately nine weeks medical treatment, and the criminal liability is not less exceptionally, the injury part and degree are heavy, and the accident was covered only by the liability insurance, and the fact that the victim did not agree with the victim.

However, considering the following facts: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the crime; (b) the Defendant’s mistake was divided; (c) there was no history of punishment heavier than the fine; (d) the Defendant’s insurance company paid KRW 7,636,580 to the victim’s liability insurance money; (c) the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment; (d) motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines set forth in the argument of the Supreme Court, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that “the right side from the right side of the defendant’s criminal history” in the judgment of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error of “the right side from the right side of the defendant’s criminal history”, and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1)