2. In light of the fact that the Defendant, by driving a bicycle with a motor device, caused the victim to shock by neglecting his/her duty to view the front door and the left door and the right door, etc., and that the victim suffered a frame that requires approximately 6 weeks of treatment as the instant case, the liability for the relevant crime is not weak.

However, in light of the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unjustifiable, and thus, cannot be deemed unfair, on the ground that the Defendant’s order is too unjustifiable. Thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s order is considered in light of the following factors: (b) the Defendant committed the crime in this case while he was under the age of 19 years of age and was in delivery; (c) the Defendant had difficulty in securing view of illegal vehicles; (d) the victim expressed his intent not to have the Defendant punished for receiving medical expenses, etc.; and (e) the Defendant’s order

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