2. In light of the content and details of each of the instant crimes, and the blood alcohol concentration level, etc., it is necessary to impose strict liability on the Defendant inasmuch as the Defendant committed the same kind of crime with personal injury, even though the Defendant was under investigation by drinking driving around March 2016, even though he/she was under investigation.

However, considering the following as a whole: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is recognized and against the victim; (b) the degree of injury suffered by the victim is relatively excessive; (c) the Defendant agreed upon with the victim in the course of the investigation; (d) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment heavier than suspended execution due to the same kind of crime; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment and circumstances after the crime; and (e) various conditions of sentencing as shown in the oral argument, including the records and arguments, and the scope of recommended sentences (not more than eight months of imprisonment) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court Sentencing / [the scope of recommended sentences] the mitigated area (not more than eight months of special mitigation) of general traffic accidents (including the case of special mitigation) (one type); (d) the mitigated area of punishment (including serious efforts to recover the damage); and (e) drinking driving, it cannot be deemed unfair to deem that the sentence imposed by the

Therefore, prosecutor's 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.