The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant could have been subject to a protective disposition due to the crime of larceny and bodily injury, and the crime of this case requires a strict warning to the Defendant, since the Defendant escaped after causing bodily injury to a police officer who is not subject to a check-up in the course of designated acceptance.

However, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is both visible, depth is divided, and it is still ageed, the thief is recovered and agreed upon, the defendant is now trying to start the motor vehicle maintenance technology, etc. in the Nschool as well as to start it into a sound social person by being aware of the change of the protective disposition after the prosecution was made after the prosecution was made, and that the director, who is a juvenile protection member, has deep interest and is going to know for the guidance and edification of the defendant, it is expected that he will not unrefise the appearance or responsibilities such as the previous violent inclination, and therefore, there is no change of circumstances that are disadvantageous to the sentencing after the decision of the court below, and there is no other change of circumstances that are considered disadvantageous to the sentencing after the sentence of the court below, and there are all other various circumstances that are the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the motive and circumstances of the instant crime, the defendant's age, character and behavior, etc.

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.