2. The instant crime on the grounds of appeal reveals that the Defendant, while driving on behalf of the Defendant, neglected to do so in the front direction, did not accurately operate the steering gear and operation devices, resulting in a serious obstacle, such as receiving the victim, making it impossible to communicate with the victim, making most of the time difficult to communicate with the victim, and making most of the time a living, etc., and suffered injury among less than 20 weeks of less than 20 weeks of injury, and the nature of such crime is good, etc., that is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant reflects the instant crime in depth, and the victim continued to have entered the crosswalk and changed to a red signal while drinking at the time of the accident, which resulted in a combination of substantial parts of the victim’s negligence. The Defendant actively participated in relief measures, such as providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation to the victim immediately after the accident; the Defendant is covered by a comprehensive insurance; the Defendant’s mother and mother do not want the Defendant’s punishment; the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment; the Defendant did not have any same power and has no criminal record beyond the suspension of execution; in light of all other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, its means and consequence, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and it cannot be deemed unfair.

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.