2. In light of the circumstances of the crime, etc., such as the occurrence of a primary traffic accident while under the influence of alcohol and the occurrence of a secondary traffic accident again after the escape, etc., the criminal liability of the defendant is not weak according to the following: (a) the occurrence of multiple victims; (b) the injury suffered by the victim of the secondary traffic accident is very heavy; (c) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level is very high at the time; and (d) the degree of violation of the duty of care for driving is considerably heavy.

However, it is also recognized that the victims of the first traffic accident do not have significant damage, and that the injury suffered by the victims is not likely to be unlimited, that victims do not want to be punished by the defendant, that all of the crimes of this case are committed by the victims, that there is no other means of criminal punishment except the records of punishment as fines before 25 years, and that there is no other means of criminal punishment.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, there is no special change of circumstances that make the lower court and the punishment different from the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.