The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim F, N, M, L and S’s statement and the statement of the comprehensive traffic accident analysis, etc., the fact that the Defendant, while driving a vehicle at a speed of at least 100 km per hour, was under the influence of alcohol by the victim F, resulting in the occurrence of an injury to the victims on board the said vehicle due to the occupational negligence, which did not seem to have been stopped to enter the middle point of a wooden direction, can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is erroneous and has affected the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, such as victim F, N, M, L and S’s statement, and traffic accident comprehensive analysis report, is insufficient to deem that the Defendant was at fault in the course of stopping to enter the damaged vehicle into the middle direction by violating the duty to reduce the speed under the influence of alcohol and to present the front direction.

It is impossible to conclude that there is a causal relationship between the drinking driving of the defendant and the occurrence of the accident in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is correct, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment below.

On November 12, 2012, the following day after the instant accident occurred, the Defendant was prepared to the police, the prosecution, and the lower court’s court.