2. Although the Defendant was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment due to driving of a motor vehicle, the fact that the Defendant caused a traffic accident while driving the motor vehicle in the condition of drinking 0.202% alcohol level without a driver's license at the same time, and the degree of criticism is large in that the Defendant did not receive any tolerance from the victims even though he/she was injured by the victims.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is too unfeasible and it is not recognized that the Defendant’s punishment is too unfasible and unfair, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was committed while committing the crime; (b) the degree of injury suffered by the victims is relatively minor; (c) the vehicle is covered by the automobile comprehensive insurance; and (d) the Defendant has no criminal record more than twice the fine for the

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 148-2 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act among the application of the law of the judgment below, since it is obvious that "Article 148-2 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act" is a clerical error in the "Article 148-2 (2) 1 of the Road Traffic Act", and it is corrected ex officio between "aggravating concurrent crimes" and "aggravating suspension of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of one."