2. Determination of the crime of this case: (a) the victim’s injury was very serious due to the crime of this case; (b) the circumstance in which the defendant actually recovered from the damage was not revealed; and (c) the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim; and (d) the defendant had been subject to criminal punishment for traffic-related crimes in the past,

Meanwhile, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant caused the instant accident by shocking the victims who are in difficulty in purchasing the insurance policy, and shocking the defective victims on the bus, and causing the instant accident, and the negligence of bus drivers in the occurrence of the said accident may be deemed to have partly affected, and the Defendant is not deemed to have breached the duty of care, and the degree of the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care is not very serious; medical expenses incurred to the victims are assumed by the L association; there is no special circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the past; it is unreasonable to deem that the Defendant’s personality and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, etc.

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

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.