2. The court below determined the above punishment against the defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. The crime of this case was committed by the defendant in violation of the alcohol content 0.193% under the influence of alcohol, resulting in an injury requiring 5 weeks medical treatment for the victim by causing a traffic accident while under the influence of alcohol, and the crime was not less than that of the defendant's negligence and the degree of injury to the victim, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion of sentencing disadvantageous to the trial at the court below seems to have sufficiently taken into account the circumstances where the defendant had been sentenced to punishment at the court below, and there was an attitude against the defendant when the crime of this case was committed properly, and there was an attitude against the defendant, and there was a need to support the victim and 2 children in the course of investigation, and considering the fact that the defendant's vehicle was covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance with the victim during the investigation process, the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by making too unffort judgment.

shall not be appointed by a person.

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