2. Although the instant traffic accident resulted in a serious consequence of the victim’s death, considering the fact that the Defendant did not take any action immediately after the accident and left the scene, strict punishment corresponding thereto is necessary.

However, the instant traffic accident, however, is serious in the degree of negligence of the defendant, where the victim, who flaged under the influence of alcohol on an expressway on the night.

It is not possible to see that the situation where a person sits on an expressway at the night (the average driver is not likely to easily predict the situation where a person sits on the expressway), and that it was dolusent rather than the defendant's intention to commit an escape.

In light of the fact that the defendant appeared to have been contacted by the investigative agency for several hours after the occurrence of the accident, the defendant was in good faith after being contacted with the investigative agency for the investigation, the defendant did not have any other criminal history except for the case of a total of two fines in around 1995 and around 197, and the defendant deposited a certain amount into the E account that was investigated by the representative of the bereaved family by the investigative agency, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., are too unjustifiable and thus, the 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 grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.