2. The crime of this case is a case where the defendant neglected the duty of a front-time driver while driving a car and sustained injury by shocking the victim who dried the crosswalk as it is, and thus, the nature of the crime is not weak; the defendant provided the cause of the latter accident as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below; the injury suffered by the victim due to the accident in this case and the latter accident; and the fact that the victim who did not agree with the victim and the victim want to punish the defendant's severe punishment is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, considering all of the sentencing conditions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act as indicated in the records and changes of the case, the sentence of the court below is too unaffortuous and unfair, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth; (b) the first offender who has no criminal history; (c) the vehicle of the Defendant was subscribed to an automobile comprehensive insurance; (d) the Defendant deposited KRW 6 million for the victim; and (e) the Defendant committed a fluent act for the victim at the time of the instant accident; and (e) the direct contact with the victim appears to have been insignificant; and (e) all of

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.