The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unfied and unreasonable.

2. While the Defendant, while drunkly breathing a victim who was challenged with a working woman, was faced with the head on the steel pents installed near the victim, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as flaging and ginginging the victim. After which the victim received multiple surgery and hospitalized treatment, it is impossible for the victim to have a daily life, such as communication or flag by her own ability until now, and even in the future, flag or flaging disease that is difficult to recover in normal conditions.

Considering the fact that the degree of damage suffered by the victim is very severe as above, and that the family members of the victim are suffering from serious mental and economic pain, and that it is not easy to recover the damage in the future, the defendant's liability for the crime cannot be deemed to be light.

However, the Defendant, as a youth of the 20th century, has no criminal records prior to the instant crime, and all of the instant crimes have been recognized from the beginning of the investigation, and is against the mistake.

It is difficult to view that the defendant had had a conclusive intention to inflict an injury on the victim, and there are circumstances that can be taken into account the criminal history and motive of the defendant.

After the crime of this case, the Defendant has borne approximately KRW 30 million for medical expenses of the victim for about 8 months, and even so far, it seems that the Defendant has continuously made a considerable and significant effort to recover damage.

Even the family members and branch members of the defendant want to have the wife against the defendant.

In addition to these circumstances, 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, as shown in the records of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.