2. The judgment of the court below is not against the duty of negligence, such as shocking the pedestrian who dried the crosswalks, but is relatively heavy, and it is not unreasonable to impose the injury on the victim. However, it is recognized that the defendant committed the crime and reflects the wrongness of the defendant. The defendant did not have the same criminal records except the punishment for the same kind of crime in 1997; the defendant's vehicle is affiliated with the victim; the defendant's vehicle is affiliated with the Financial Cooperative; the defendant's age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, circumstances and results of the crime; and other various sentencing factors indicated in the instant case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, occupation and environment, and circumstances after the crime.

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.