2. The crime of this case in light of the fact that the Defendant was driven while under the influence of alcohol and escaped from a traffic accident, and that there was a high risk of serious human life damage due to the Defendant’s crime, etc., the liability for the crime of this case is not easy.

The circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant include the fact that the defendant suffered serious injury by one victim due to the defendant's crime, and that the witness has caused danger and impediment to traffic such as towing the defendant's vehicle, and that the defendant's drinking value is considerably high by 0.150%.

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the defendant, that the victim does not want punishment for the defendant in the original trial by mutual consent with the victims, that the defendant's vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance, and thus the physical damage to the damaged vehicle and the personal damage to the victim H were recovered, that there was no criminal history exceeding the fine of the defendant, and that the defendant's disposal of the vehicle and disposal of the vehicle are not required to repeat again, etc., are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances, and all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, since the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

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.