However, although the prosecutor submitted the petition of appeal stating the scope of the appeal as "total", the prosecutor does not state the grounds for appeal concerning the dismissal of public prosecution in the judgment below, and the grounds for appeal stating that the grounds for appeal concerning the dismissal of public prosecution in the petition of appeal or the grounds for appeal submitted by the prosecutor are "unjustifiable." Thus, it is reasonable to

The judgment below

Since the part of the judgment of the court below which appealed only against the conviction, and the part of the dismissal of prosecution is not appealed by both the defendant and the prosecutor, the above dismissal of prosecution in the judgment below is separated and finalized, the scope of the judgment of the court shall

2. The sentence of a fine of KRW 8 million imposed by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. The crime of this case in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, the Defendant committed the crime of this case where the victim’s face, who was a police officer, sent to the scene while the Defendant was under influence of alcohol, was frighted and was in need of medical treatment for about two weeks, and the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not less exceptionally in light of the background and contents of the crime.

However, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing are deemed to have been reflected in the lower judgment’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and the Defendant’s age, occupation, personality and conduct, family relation, and family relation. The Defendant’s name, occupation, character, environment, and family relation are considered to have been reflected in the facts charged of this case, and the Defendant deposited KRW 1 million for the sake of the victim. The Defendant appears to have been subject to the victim’s permission, and the Defendant did not submit new sentencing data in the first instance trial