2. The crime of this case is a case where the Defendant driven while under the influence of alcohol 0.083% with the central line of alcohol, and sustained injury to the victim requiring approximately six weeks of medical treatment while driving the bicycle driven by the injured party due to the negligent negligence, and the quality of the crime is not somewhat weak, and the Defendant has a record of criminal punishment of fines on two occasions due to drunk driving even before, and thus, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant acknowledges the crime of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, that the family members and branch members of the defendant want the punishment of the defendant, that the defendant want the defendant's prior wife by simply agreement with the victim, and that the defendant does not repeat the above mistake again, which is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., as seen above, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.