2. In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, etc., the degree of negligence of the Defendant, which can be known, is not somewhat weak; the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level was relatively high at the time of the instant crime; the degree of injury suffered by the victim E is relatively heavy; the degree of injury suffered by the victim E is not less minor; the Defendant was unable to agree with the victim D; the said victim was seeking punishment against the Defendant; and the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the history of having been punished by a fine due to the previous crime of drunk driving.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant's wrong recognition, the vehicle of the defendant's driver is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, the victim E and the victim do not want the punishment of the defendant, there is no record of punishment other than the above fine, and the defendant seems to support the mixed child.

In light of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, family relationship, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unfair in light of the following circumstances.

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.