2. In light of the motive of the instant crime, there is a very high risk in light of the form of the instant crime, the degree of damage actually suffered by the victim, the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim, and the victim wanted to be punished by imprisonment until the court below rendered a judgment of conviction, but the Defendant did not file an appeal differently and did not file an appeal. In light of the circumstances, the Defendant’s efforts to recover damage by depositing KRW 15 million for the victim, etc., the Defendant partly caused the instant crime; the Defendant was exempted from the commission of the instant crime; the Defendant did not have the history of the same crime; the Defendant was sentenced to a fine twice due to drunk driving andless driving; there was no special circumstance or circumstance that may be newly considered after the sentence of the court below; the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing and the records are acknowledged to be adequate.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing 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.