2. In light of the fact that the defendant's negligence, who violated the signal at the crosswalk of the judgment on the grounds for appeal, caused the result of an injury while the victim now became a plant human being and did not agree with the victim, strict punishment against the defendant is necessary.

However, in the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case, the defendant recognized the crime in this case, the victim was negligent in driving off the front door in the crosswalk, the bus operated by the defendant was insured by the mutual aid association, the mutual aid association paid the victim KRW 40 million in the name of treatment expenses, the victim paid the victim KRW 24 million in the name of compensation for damages, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for the punishment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in around 1993, and all the sentencing circumstances shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and result of the crime, the circumstance after the crime, etc., are not recognized as being too unfavorable and unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 268 of the Act on Criminal Procedure). However, since the application of the law of the court below, “Article 268 of the Act on Criminal Procedure” is clearly erroneous in office under Article 268 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the correction is made ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.