2. In the instant case, the degree of injury suffered by the victimized child cannot be deemed to be light, and the victimized child and his parents seem to have suffered considerable mental pain.

In addition, considering the fact that there is still no agreement with the victim, the prosecutor's argument that the defendant needs more severe punishment is acceptable.

However, at the time of the accident, the victimized child was reported to another infant care teacher, and the accident was not caused due to the defendant's direct breach of duty of care.

Although it is judged that there is a mistake that the defendant did not regulate the location, height, etc. of the living room in preparation for the case where the child is going up and is listed in the living room, it seems that the safety inspection of other regular childcare facilities was conducted.

The defendant, who had no criminal record, recognized his/her mistake as a first offense, and is in profoundly against himself/herself.

In full view of all the circumstances, including these circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.