2. On the other hand, the Defendant was in violation of signal signals (if red-off lights turn on a temporary stop, the Defendant should temporarily stop) while driving under the influence of alcohol, and the blood alcohol concentration in the instant case is very high as 0.225%, and there are no parts in which the Defendant made separate efforts to recover damage to the victims.

In addition, the vehicle driven by the defendant is covered only by liability insurance, and the defendant has a record of being punished once due to drinking driving.

However, the defendant recognized the facts charged, and deposited 1.5 million won for G in the first instance, and 1.0 million won for E in the first instance, and the degree of injury of E, a driver of a damaged vehicle, is not too serious.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is not deemed unreasonable.

3. 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.

(As it is obvious that "victim H" is a clerical error of "victim E" in Part 2, the original decision shall be corrected ex officio).