2. The lower court rendered the above sentence by taking into account the following favorable circumstances: (a) the risk of the means of crime is high; (b) the Defendant reflects against the victim’s failure to agree with the victim; (c) the fact that the victim under the influence of alcohol committed a defect by contingency; (d) the degree of injury to the victim is relatively heavy; (e) the victim did not have a criminal record exceeding the same kind of violence or fine; and (e) the health status is not good.

In full view of the circumstances taken into account by the lower court and all other conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background and consequence of the commission of the offense, means and consequence, size of the offense, and circumstances after the commission of the offense, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair as it is so far as it ought to be reversed.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da36442, Jan. 26, 2017).