2. Although the circumstances are recognized such as the Defendant’s deprivation of the central line and escape from criticism, and the Defendant was unaware of shocking the shocking fact at the time of investigating the investigation agency and denied the crime, etc. However, the extent of damage caused by the instant traffic accident is relatively minor, the Defendant’s vehicle was covered by a comprehensive insurance, the victims and the victims agreed to agree with the Defendant, the Defendant led to confession of the facts committed in the court below, and the Defendant appears to be somewhat harsh if he was sentenced to a suspended sentence or a heavier punishment, and the Defendant’s retirement from the workplace is somewhat harsh. In light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendant is unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.