The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and six years of probation, probation, community service, 120 hours of probation, and 40 hours of compliance driving) that the court below sentenced to the defendant is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. 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 the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Prosecutor as an element of sentencing have already been discovered and sufficiently considered in the hearing process of the lower court, and no particular change of circumstances was found in the matters subject to sentencing after the lower judgment was pronounced.

At the court below, the defendant paid 5 million won to the victim of the bodily injury case, thereby recovering the damage of the victim, and agree with the victim.

In addition, considering the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the sentencing of the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is reasonable to respect it as it is too unjustifiable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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.

(However, pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, ex officio the fourth 5th written consent to blood collection shall be corrected to the consent to blood collection).