2. The crime of this case is a factor for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant, in light of the defendant's age or experience in social activities, such as: (a) the defendant was able to attract the head of a woman who was only on the ground that the defendant had not been able to sit in at the new wall time; and (b) the injury was inflicted on the motor vehicle after driving the motor vehicle; and (c) the criminal act appears to be very unlimited and rush behavior in light of the defendant's age or experience in social activities.

Meanwhile, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant divided his mistake into one and reflects the Defendant; (b) the damage from the instant crime was not serious; (c) the victim did not want to punish the Defendant by agreement with the Defendant; (d) the Defendant does not have any other criminal records other than fines once; and (e) the Defendant’s character, character, intelligence and environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be unreasonable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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