2. The judgment of the defendant, even though he was involved in the damaged vehicle in the air traffic signal at the front of the driving at the night, is rather likely to punish the above victim by rapidly leaving the above vehicle, which is the object dangerous to the victim by getting off the vehicle from the vehicle to the defendant's driver, in order to cope with the accident, and assault the victim and escape out of the site as it is, the nature of the crime is not good and there is a high possibility of criticism.

However, it seems that the traffic accident in this case was relatively unbrupted, and it seems that the victims were not severe, and the victims did not want to be punished against the defendant in the trial, and the vehicle operated by the defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and the victims received the agreement of traffic accident amounting to three million won from the insurance company, and the medical expenses were paid, the victims did not have the same criminal history, and there was no history of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and the family and branch of the defendant want to take the front place.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, health status, environment, motive and means of crime, circumstances after crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable as it is too uneasible.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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