A. In relation to the part not guilty of the reasoning of the lower judgment, it is inappropriate to determine whether a “traffic danger and disability” occurred by vehicle involved in the accident, since the traffic accidents caused by the Defendant are a series of traffic accidents that occurred at the same place.

However, the judgment of the court below which judged it by accident vehicle and found the defendant not guilty of the charges related to the first traffic accident is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the lecture attendance order of compliance driving 40 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that there was a need to take any measure against the Defendant for the safe and smooth flow of traffic on the grounds of the detailed circumstances in the item “non-crime part” of the judgment, on the basis of the following facts: “Evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone alone caused danger and obstacle to road traffic, interfere with safe and smooth flow of traffic, or to take any measures for the safe and smooth flow of traffic.”

The instant facts charged were acquitted on the ground that the recognition is insufficient.

In a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or misunderstanding of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The crime of this case as to whether sentencing is unfair or not, is deemed to have escaped without taking necessary measures even though the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and did not cause a traffic accident. The crime of this case is deemed to have been bad in the nature of the crime, and the alcohol concentration among the blood of the Defendant at the time of this case is relatively high to 0.121%, and the Defendant has already been punished by a fine three-time due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (in the event of an