2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, in light of the victim’s injury level and degree, where the Defendant, who did not drink, inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim. In light of the victim’s injury level and degree, the liability for the crime is not less than that provided, the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime (one time of fine), and the Defendant did not agree with the victim.

However, the defendant reflects his mistake, has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine, the defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case contingently, and the defendant appears to have endeavored to recover from damage in lieu of the victim's hospital expenses of KRW 5090,000,000,000 to the victim under the pretext of agreement.

(No. 90 of the Evidence Records), the mother of a defendant whose health is not good desires to be placed in the preference against the defendant, and the various sentencing conditions according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court in relation to the crime of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court in accordance with the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court is not recognized to be unfair because the sentence of this case is too uneasible to the extent that the sentence of the court below is reversed, in full view of the following factors: imprisonment for not more than two years, for not more than six months, violent crime group, general injury type 1 (general injury), special salivists (special injury), decision on the recommended area (up to six to two years), the recommended area (up to six months), the recommended sentence scope (up to efforts to recover damage), the main positive factors (up to the end of six to two years), the main reasons for the suspension of execution

3. The final appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the final appeal by the prosecutor is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition