2. The crime of this case was committed on the basis of the following: (a) the Defendant discovered a police officer who controls drinking while driving a drinking without a license, and escaped from the vehicle without taking necessary measures despite the negligence of not taking proper action, and thereby, the nature of the crime was very poor; (b) the vehicle driven by the Defendant was not covered by mandatory insurance; (c) the Defendant was under the condition that the vehicle was not covered by the mandatory insurance; (d) three times due to drinking driving; and (e) one time due to the escape vehicle; (d) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol; (e) the victims are against the wrong consent; (e) the victims do not want the punishment against the Defendant; (g) the victims’ injury was relatively insignificant; and (e) other favorable circumstances, such as the victim’s age, character, environment, family relationship, circumstances, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and thus, cannot be deemed unfair.

The ground for appeal is without merit.

3. As the appeal by the public prosecutor is without merit, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That it is dismissed ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure; however, according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of a measure that was not taken after an accident)” as “Articles 148 and 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016)” as “Article 148 and 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (the occupation of a measure that was not taken after an accident).”