2. In full view of the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant injured the victim by causing a traffic accident, and that the nature of the crime of this case that the defendant escaped without taking any action against the victim's damage, is considerably poor, or that the defendant's mistake is against the defendant, that the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant, that the victim is covered by a comprehensive insurance, that the defendant does not want the punishment against the defendant by agreement with the victim, that the defendant is covered by a comprehensive insurance, that the defendant does not have any specific criminal record other than the punishment imposed for the previous 27 years, and that other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age (71 years old), sex behavior, environment, family relations, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

3. As the appeal by the public prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the court below’s ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, “Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of a measure not taken after an accident)” as “Articles 148 and 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016).”