The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (the three years of suspended sentence in August, the observation of protection, and the community service hours in 160 hours) is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant inflicted serious injury on the aged victim, and that the injured person was punished by the Defendant because the damage was not recovered, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of the above circumstances, the lower court appears to have sentenced to community service and the observation of protection along with the suspended sentence of imprisonment. In the first instance court, there is no change in sentencing conditions that may differ from the lower court’s punishment; the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a contingent manner under the influence of alcohol; and in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed unfair since the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.