2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant violated the signal and caused the injury to the victims of fluoring a crossing report in accordance with the pedestrian signals; (b) the degree of injury to the victims of fluoring; and (c) the occurrence of three victims of the said traffic accident.

However, it is necessary to respect the judgment of the court below because there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the court below because new sentencing data have not been submitted in the trial at the court below, and it is necessary to respect the judgment of the court below because there is no change in the sentencing conditions. The defendant reflects the defendant's depth in the crime of this case, the defendant agreed with the guardian of the victims, the defendant's vehicle's subscription to the taxi mutual aid association for 20 years and there seems to be no obstacle to the recovery of damage to the victim F. The defendant did not have been punished in relation to driving while driving the taxi for 20 years, and there is no record of investigation before and after the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 30,000 won due to violence in 206, and the defendant has not been sentenced to a long-term judicial branch due to the long-term economic situation, the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's character and behavior, the environment and age of the defendant, and other various circumstances that

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.