2. Although the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine on one occasion due to a drunk driving in 2014, in light of the Defendant’s drinking or driving behavior, and the Defendant’s criminal records, it is clear that the nature of the instant crime and its possibility of criticism are not somewhat weak in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s driving at a two-lane road at a speed of about 30 km/h and above that of about 95 km with a speed of about 30 km/h; and (b) the Defendant’s driving behavior and the Defendant’s criminal records.

However, the defendant's attitude to recognize and reflect the defendant's mistake, the defendant has no other criminal records except the above fine, the victim's injury is relatively minor, and the defendant does not want the victim's punishment by mutual consent with the victims in an investigative agency, and the vehicle operated by the defendant is being covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, etc. should be taken into consideration in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and other circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence sentenced by the court below is determined to be within the proper scope of sentencing discretion.

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.