2. The judgment below rendered a sentence above in consideration of the following favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant had a history of punishment for violent crime several times; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol while under the suspension of execution; and (c) the Defendant reflects against the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime; (d) after the instant case, the Defendant is running a golding life; and (e) the Defendant’s restoration of damage to the victim; and (e) the agreement was reached smoothly.

Even in light of the fact that the Defendant’s nature of the crime is not somewhat weak, taking into account the following factors: (a) the degree of damage to the damaged vehicle is not relatively heavy; (b) the favorable circumstances that the Defendant agreed with the victim, such as the Defendant’s favorable circumstances, and all other sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the crime, means and consequence; (c) the scale and consequence of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing judgment is beyond the reasonable bounds of discretion or is not unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the prosecutor’s allegation above

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.