2. The judgment of the Defendant caused a traffic accident involving two victims by negligence in violation of the direction of safety signs, and thus, the Defendant’s liability for such crime is not weak and did not reach an agreement with the victims, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions in the pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, accident circumstance, and result, the fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects, there was no history of criminal punishment after 2010, and there is no history of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and that the damage was most caused by the comprehensive automobile insurance that was subscribed to the vehicle involved in the accident. In addition, given that the lower court’s sentencing was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the argument, such as the circumstance after the crime was committed, given that there was no special change in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court was found, it cannot be deemed unfair

Therefore, the prosecutor's above 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 grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.