2. The judgment of the court below is that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant while driving a drinking alcohol and causing a traffic accident to inflict injury upon the victims requiring a medical treatment for about two weeks, and thus its nature is not good. The defendant had the record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime even before, and the degree of alcohol concentration at the time of detection is 0.17% high, and the driving of drinking is a crime that may cause serious danger to the life and property of others, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant as it is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, although the defendant recognized his criminal act and reflects his mistake in depth, there is a history of criminal punishment for the same crime before, it is favorable to the defendant. However, it is 15 years prior to the crime of this case, the degree of injury suffered by the victims due to the traffic accident of this case is relatively minor, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance, the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant, the victim K and M do not want the punishment in the original judgment, the victim K and M deposited KRW 500,000 for the victim F and H, and the family members of the defendant want the defendant's preference.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the court below’s punishment is too unfasible and unfair, and thus, the prosecutor’s assertion 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.