2. The circumstances that are disadvantageous to the Defendant include: (a) the fact that the Defendant, without any special reason, has damaged a victim D’s vehicle by repeatedly flaging a large part of the vehicle surface for a long time; (b) the Defendant removed the victim G name tag used for 30 years; and (c) the fact that the Defendant did not reach an agreement with G

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant seems to have led to the crime of this case, the defendant's life as an elderly pension, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the defendant paid 7 million won more than twice the automobile repair cost to the victim D to restore damage and agreed with D by paying 300,000 won for the victim G, the fact that deposit of 300,000 won for the victim G seems to have been made and the damage equivalent to the exchange value of the name tag has been recovered. The defendant is in dispute with G and the cerebral 5th degree disabled in the cerebral disease, and the defendant seems to have been living as an elderly person, and the defendant lives as an elderly pension, and there is no investigation and criminal history other than the suspension of indictment for the crime of injury.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

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