2. The Defendant’s crime of this case was committed in violation of the signal and caused injury to the victim while driving a two-wheeled automobile, and the quality of the crime is not good in light of the degree of negligence. In particular, considering the fact that the degree of the victim’s injury is extremely heavy enough to require 7 weeks’ medical treatment, and that there was no agreement with the victim up to the trial, the Defendant cannot be deemed to be liable for the crime. However, there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances after the crime, such as having the victim undergo medical treatment immediately after the accident, such as having the victim undergo medical treatment at the hospital. However, the Defendant is deemed to have been covered by the liability insurance, and there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine under the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and there is no other history of punishment exceeding the fine, and considering all circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the prosecutor’s assertion that the judgment below is unreasonable and unreasonable.

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.