The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for a term of one year, two years of suspended execution, community service, 160 hours, and 40 hours of compliance driving lectures) 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). The crime of this case is acknowledged as follows: (a) the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol and driving a car with no license, caused a traffic accident while driving the car and resulting in an injury requiring medical treatment for each of three weeks to two victims; (b) the nature of the crime is not weak in light of the method of crime and the degree of damage; (c) the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; and (d) the Defendant had the record of having been punished for the previous offense; and (c) the Defendant was unable to reach an agreement with the victims until

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of each of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for those subject to punishment once for the same crime; and (c) there is no change in special circumstances to change the punishment of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and (d) the equity of sentencing with the same or similar incidents, as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of each of the instant crimes, and all of the sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct,

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 ordered as per Disposition.