2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the defendant's injury was sustained by the victims by shocking a prior vehicle stopping under the stop signals during driving under the influence of alcohol, and the criminal liability is heavy, the alcohol concentration in blood is 0.135%, and the victim did not agree with the victim.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the crime and divided his mistake, there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime, the victim's injury part and degree of injury, the fact that the vehicle was covered by an automobile comprehensive insurance policy, the Defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court's punishment is too uneasible and it is not deemed unfair.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). However, since the judgment of the court below is obvious that the facts constituting a crime to which the law applies are applicable fall under this error, it is obvious that the former part was omitted. Thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.