2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant with on-and-off signal lights, etc. on a road along which crosswalks are installed and caused serious injury by neglecting his duty to see the front direction, etc., and the Defendant’s negligence and degree of damage are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and is against the defendant, the fact that there is no particular criminal history other than sentenced to a fine for a crime of 1998, the fact that the vehicle of the defendant's driver is covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance, the fact that the injured party does not want criminal punishment of the defendant, and even if the victim's victim's wife is wanted to take the action against the defendant, it is favorable to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to deem the lower court’s punishment to be too uneasible and unfair.

Therefore, 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.