2. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the favorable circumstances, that the degree of disturbance is not easy, that the Defendant led to a confession and that the Defendant would have led to a criminal act under the influence of alcohol, and that the treatment and support would be necessary.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

There is a need to strictly punish crimes that interfere with public duties as argued by prosecutors on the grounds of appeal.

However, the above conditions of sentencing have changed significantly in the trial.

It is difficult to see the above sentencing, and the fact that the above sentencing is due to the fact that the defendant's work as a bus article and the defendant's living is highly likely to be lost and difficult if he is detained, and that the defendant will not repeat the crime in depth and again.

In full view of the sentencing conditions, such as the fact that the lower court’s punishment is too unfilled, and thus, cannot be deemed unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.