2. Determination of each of the crimes of this case is acknowledged that the defendant escaped without taking any measure against the victims by shocking the damaged vehicle while driving alcohol, causing injury to the victims, and that the crime is very heavy, and that the alcohol concentration in blood is 0.110% high.

However, considering all of the sentencing conditions stated in the pleadings of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unafford and unfair, in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant has led to the confession of all of the crimes; (b) there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; (c) the victims and the victims have agreed smoothly; (d) the vehicle was covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; and (e) the part and degree of injury was not heavy; and (e) the victim’s age, sexual conduct,

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the summary of the evidence in the judgment of the court below was added to the error of “written reply to appraisal” of 4 acts in the summary of the evidence, and “the point of driving an escape vehicle” of 3 acts in the column of the application of the law is a clerical error of “the point of operating an escape after causing injury or injury to his duty.” Since it is obvious that the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” of the detention clause in the workhouse is omitted by mistake, “Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act” following the “Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure