2. There is a high degree of criticism in that the defendant, even though he had the history of punishment twice due to drinking driving, causes a traffic accident where the damaged vehicle is recovered while driving a drinking, and the victim suffers injury.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant committed a crime; (b) the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant by agreement with the victim; (c) the degree of injury the victim suffered is relatively minor; and (d) the Defendant disposed of the said vehicle after the instant crime; (b) the Defendant did not have any criminal record in addition to the fine; and (c) the Defendant did not have any criminal record; and (d) all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since it is obvious that "report on detection of the primary driver" in the summary of the evidence of the judgment below is a clerical error in the "report on detection of the primary driver", it is corrected ex officio, and it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "the pertinent Article of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents: Selection of Punishment: Selection of imprisonment without prison labor for a violation of the "Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" and "the addition of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime in violation of