2. As the Defendant was negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care due to the negligence of neglecting his/her duty of self-reliance on the unmanned scambling of a basic state, the degree of violation of his/her duty of care is grave, driving a motor vehicle without obtaining a driver's license in drinking condition, and the nature of the crime is very bad, some victims wish to punish the Defendant, and the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished several times for the same crime

However, all of the crimes of this case are committed by the defendant, and the degree of injury of the victims is heavy.

Some victims shall not want the punishment of the defendant.

In addition, it seems that part of the damage caused by the liability insurance purchased by the defendant's vehicle is to be recovered, and the defendant is also aware of the circumstances that can be considered to the defendant such as making efforts to recover the damage by depositing part of the damage amount to the victims.

In full view of the above circumstances and the fact that there are no special circumstances that the court below and the punishment are different from those of the court below, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below does not seem to be unfair because it is too unfeasible.

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.