The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of lecture for compliance driving) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is deemed unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, while driving under the influence of alcohol, caused a traffic accident by negligence, which led to the central crime, and the four victims of the above accident were injured.

The drinking level at the time of crime is also high.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the facts charged and reflects the fact that the vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance, the victims are not subject to the punishment of the Defendant by mutual agreement with the victims, and the age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the commission of the offense, circumstances after the commission of the offense, etc., the lower court’s punishment is not deemed unfair and unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That in the application of the judgment of the court below, "Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents: Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents: Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the 1. Criminal facts: Article 3 (1) and (2) (proviso) 2 and 8 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; Article 268 of the Criminal Act is obvious that it is a clerical error of Article 3 (1) and (2) (proviso) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; correction ex officio