2. The judgment of the defendant caused a traffic accident involving human and physical injury while driving a motor vehicle again even though he/she had been punished twice for the same kind of crime in the past. In light of the content and circumstances of the crime in this case, the degree of blood alcohol concentration level, etc., the crime in this case is not easy.

However, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects on the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the recovery of considerable damage caused by the automobile comprehensive insurance to which the Defendant was admitted; (c) the degree of injury suffered by the victim is relatively less severe; and (d) the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., as well as the various sentencing conditions shown in the proceedings and arguments, the scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission (eight months to two years for imprisonment) [the scope of recommending punishment] the aggravated area (8 months to two years for ordinary traffic accidents) [the scope of recommending punishment] in the case of drunk driving, etc., the sentence imposed by the

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.