2. Considering the fact that the Defendant, without a minor dispute or any particular reason, committed a crime of violation of road traffic laws, such as inflicting injury on the victims by using violence against the victim E, I, and L, and the degree of the injury, and the detention warrant was requested due to the injury to the victim E, I, and I, but the detention warrant was dismissed, and the Defendant committed a crime of violation of road traffic laws, such as the injury to the victim L again, and driving under the influence of alcohol even though there was a history of punishment several times due to drinking driving.

However, in full view of various sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended punishment guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. In so doing, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.