2. The instant crime was committed under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, and thereby resulting in a traffic accident, resulting in the victim’s injury requiring considerable medical treatment, and the crime was committed under the influence of alcohol, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant, in light of the degree of driving, degree of injury, and circumstances leading to the crime.

However, the defendant would not drive drinking again against his mistake in depth and again.

The fact that there is no special criminal history prior to the crime of this case, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, the fact that the victim and the parents of the victim want to support the defendant, the family members and the branch members of the defendant want to guide the defendant while complaining of the defendant's preference, etc. are considered to be favorable to the defendant.

Considering all of the above circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act as seen in the records and changes in the instant case, the lower court’s punishment is too unfluent and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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