2. The injury suffered by the victims due to the accident of this case committed by the defendant in the face of the judgment, and the fact that the defendant did not agree with the victims is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, even though the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims, the defendant is expected to have been admitted to the taxi mutual aid association and thus the victim's damage is expected to be recovered considerably, and the defendant seems to have been driving a taxi without an accident for 20 years prior to the accident of this case.

In light of the above circumstances and motive leading up to the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, defendant's age, character and conduct, family relation, environment, occupation, etc., the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee (the scope of recommendations) shall be based on the basic area (4 to 10 months) (no special person) of the first type (the injury caused by traffic accident) (the scope of recommendations) (4 to 10 months), and the basic area (4 to 10 months) (no special person): - General motor vehicle insurance subscription - General motor vehicle insurance subscription - Cases falling under the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the other special school characteristics (whether suspended sentence is suspended) where serious injury not serious injury occurs (type 1), and other special school characteristics (whether it falls under the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Act) - General witness grounds: In consideration of positive (automobile comprehensive insurance subscription). Thus, the prosecutor's claim as above is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.