2. The crime of this case is recognized that only because the victim, who is the owner of marina business, was infinitely responding to it, the victim suffered bodily injury while possessing excessive possession and finding the victim, and the victim inflicted bodily injury on the side finc and finc in two times above, and the crime of this case has significant nature of the crime, two times suspended execution of the same crime, and three times sentenced to a fine.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant has both committed a crime; (b) the Defendant has already committed a crime; and (c) the Defendant has to refrain from repeating a crime by being employed as a company member in a region where the sentence is being committed; (b) the Defendant has no record of having been sentenced to imprisonment; (c) the degree of injury is not relatively large; and (d) the Defendant has agreed with the victim solely with the victim; (c) there is room to deem that the Defendant had reached an contingent crime under the influence of alcohol; and (d) there is no circumstance to take into account the circumstances of the crime, such as the Defendant’s age, career, and family relationship, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too un

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.