The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant had been punished for a drunk driving twice, he/she is driving in the numerical value of 0.092% of his/her blood alcohol concentration again, even though he/she had been sentenced to a fine due to a drunk driving.

In light of the fact that traffic accidents occur and cause the death of a pedestrian victim, the responsibility is not weak.

B. Meanwhile, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was not subject to a sentence, led to the confession of the crime, and led to the misunderstanding, the victim’s bereaved family members and the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle has agreed to have been covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, family relation, living environment, details and result of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case after the crime was committed, the sentence of the court below is appropriate.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, since the application of the law of the court below is obvious that the phrase "Article 38 (1) 2" in the part of the concurrent criminal prices stated in the application of the law is a clerical error in Article 38 (1) 2 and (2), it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.