2. The judgment of this case is that the defendant suffered serious injury on the part of the victim due to the main illness, which is a dangerous thing of the defendant, in light of the risk of the criminal act, the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak, and that the victim desires to punish the defendant with severe punishment is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the defendant, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and that it did not reach an agreement with the victim, but efforts to recover damage, such as paying five million won to the victim, is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above normal relationship and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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