2. In light of the substance and circumstances of the instant crime, the degree of injury suffered by the victim, etc., although the nature of the instant crime is not somewhat weak, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects the Defendant; (b) the victim’s negligence without permission was the cause of traffic accident; (c) the Defendant sought the victim after the accident; (d) the Defendant agreed to do so with the victim; (c) the Defendant did not have any previous conviction; and (d) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime; and (e) the scope of recommendations (three months to one year) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court [the scope of recommending punishment] (three months to one year] under the special mitigation area (three-one year after the injury) [special mitigation] (a) where the victim was committed by considerable negligence in the occurrence or the expansion of damage caused by traffic accident; and (b) the number of self-denunciation and the amount of punishment.

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.