2. The crime of this case is acknowledged as follows: (a) by negligence by the Defendant while driving a CRavia car while driving the said car, the Defendant received the front part of the Oral part driven by the victim D (the age of 61) from the front part of the said car in front of the said car; (b) suffered bodily injury, such as the left-hand gate, the alley, the alley, and the trine scopic wave, etc., which require treatment for about eight weeks; (c) in violation of the signal, the degree of the Defendant’s negligence is significant; and (d) the injury suffered by the victim is also not sufficient to commit a crime due to the injury of the victim.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s time to commit the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant was aware of and against the instant crime, the vehicle is covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and the monetary compensation for the victim is sufficiently secured, the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim late later, and the Defendant’s primary offender is the primary offender, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is not deemed to be unreasonable since it is too appropriate and too unreasonable. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.