2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of 0.115% alcohol concentration in blood, was committed by the Defendant with his/her spouse who was at the time divorced with the victim who was at the time and was in dispute with him/her, and assaulted the victim by taking the head of the victim due to beer disease, which is a dangerous object, and the nature of the relevant crime is bad, and the Defendant has the same criminal record as he/she was punished due to a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, a violation of the Road Traffic Act, a violation of the Punishment of Violences Act, a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a violation of the Road Traffic Act

However, even if we do not seem to have suffered injury due to the assault of the defendant, considering the fact that the defendant deposited KRW 1.2 million in the court below for the victim, that there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine for the defendant for the same kind of crime, that the defendant reflects his mistake, and other various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, motive, means, method, method and consequence leading to the crime of this case, circumstance before and after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment cannot be deemed to be too unjustifiable, and thus the prosecutor's assertion cannot be accepted.

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.

Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 148-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 44 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, since it is clear that the decision of imprisonment is a clerical error.