The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended execution in the imprisonment of eight months and forty hours of compliance driving) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished twice due to driving of alcohol, the fact that the Defendant caused a traffic accident while driving a cargo vehicle while driving at 0.118% of alcohol during his/her blood while driving the vehicle, is highly criticized in that it causes a relatively heavy injury to the victim, thereby causing a relatively heavy injury to the victim.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, including the fact that the defendant was committed while committing the crime, the fact that the vehicle is purchasing the liability insurance, the degree of damage is expected to be recovered, the victim is not obliged to punish the defendant, and the defendant's age, sex behavior, environment, occupation, and circumstances after committing the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unfeasible and unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 148-2(2) and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act’s “Article 148-2(2) and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act” in the application of the law of the court below is a clerical error in the “Article 148-2(2), 2, and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act.” Thus, the court below’s ex officio correction is made.