A. In light of the fact that there is no fact that the defendant was found to be abnormal after a misunderstanding of facts, the fact that the defendant continued to drive a vehicle and requested a stop even though the taxi was driven by the defendant, and that the body of passengers on board a vehicle after a sudden stop can be caused by fire in the future, etc., the charges of the special injury of this case may be fully convicted.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below pronounced innocence on this part of the facts charged, and examined them closely with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and it does not seem that there was an error of mistake of facts pointed out by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As compared to the first instance court of the unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and considering all the factors of sentencing including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too unhued and so it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, 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.