2. The instant crime is not limited to the punishment of a half-value of the act and a half-value of the result that the Defendant driven a car while under the influence of alcohol 0.112% of the blood alcohol concentration and did not take necessary measures even after causing considerable damage to many victims.

In addition, considering the fact that the car driven by the defendant was not covered by the automobile mandatory insurance and the victims suffered difficulties in recovering from damage, the defendant should be punished for severe punishment.

However, although the defendant argued some of the crimes in the court below, the court below recognized all of the crimes in this case and divided his mistake.

In addition, the defendant agreed with the victim FF and K, and after the judgment of the court below was sentenced, it seems that the victim H made efforts to recover damage by making full payment of 5.83 billion won to the insurance company.

In addition, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was punished by a fine in 199 and 2003 for other crimes; and (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (c) motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

The prosecutor's ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.