The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of an order to attend a law-abiding lecture) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Each of the instant crimes is acknowledged as follows: (a) when the Defendant was found to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol content 0.169%, while driving the vehicle, and committing the instant crime, the Defendant was found to have committed an injury to police officials G for about four weeks in the process of causing about two weeks of injury required for a police officer G treatment; (b) injury to police officials I for about two weeks of injury required for a police officer I; and (c) injury that requires a police officer H for about four weeks of medical treatment; and (d) the relevant crime is not less complicated; and (e) the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime even before.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of each of the instant crimes and the prevention of recurrence while committing a crime; (b) when the Defendant was in a trial, the police officers who did not want the punishment against the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, family relationship, economic situation; and (d) the background of each of the instant crimes and the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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