The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. Despite the power of punishment for driving under drinking, the Defendant caused a traffic accident while driving a vehicle that is not covered by mandatory insurance while driving at a high level of 0.122% alcohol level during the re-driving of the vehicle, which is likely to cause a traffic accident. As a result, the Defendant’s injury to the victim C and damaged the victim D’s vehicle, thereby causing a loss exceeding one million won, and thus, it is highly likely that the Defendant did not actually receive suspicion from the victims.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant was committed while committing a crime; (b) the victim C’s injury is relatively minor; (c) the victim C, who attempted to commit an illegal internship with the central line, appears to be partially responsible for the occurrence of the instant traffic accident; (d) the Defendant did not have any previous conviction, other than twice a fine; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, occupation, and circumstances after committing a crime, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, occupation, and circumstances after committing a crime

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 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That among the criminal facts of the judgment below, it is obvious that the victim suffered injury, such as salt, tensions, etc. in the chills requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment, and at the same time, damage the EXA to cover KRW 1,250,238 in repair cost, etc.). The phrase “A victim C suffers injury, such as light crums, tensions, etc. requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment, and at the same time, damage the EXA car owned by the victim to cover KRW 1,250,238 in repair cost.” It is corrected ex officio).