The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged in the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury), the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) even though the defendant could recognize the fact that he/she drives a compact vehicle.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of all the charges of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury), violation of Road Traffic Act (toxicly Driving), and violation of Road Traffic Act (non-licenseless Driving) on the premise that the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle on the ground that the Defendant was found to have been seated on the rear seat of the driver of the victimized vehicle at the time of the accident due to CCTV images taken up at the scene before and after the accident, on the ground that the Defendant was found to have been seated by another person.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the records and evidence, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

B. It is desirable to respect the sentencing conditions of the lower court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the scope of reasonable discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, taking full account of the various circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant into account, determined a punishment within a reasonable scope, and there is no circumstance to be newly considered in the trial of the lower court

Considering the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, the sentence of the court below is too unfilled and it is not deemed unfair.

We cannot accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.