The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of lecture for compliance driving) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). Although the Defendant had been punished twice by a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) on the road, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim D, who was on the back seat of the instant case, causing a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle without a drinking license while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, causing a traffic accident and causing a traffic accident for about 14 weeks medical treatment.

However, the defendant is under treatment by suffering from an injury cut to the left hand due to the instant traffic accident, and the defendant is aware that he is driving a drinking, and the victim is also responsible for a certain portion of the occurrence of the instant accident even to the victim who gets on the part of the defendant's driving, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there are no new changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and theories of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age (21 years old), background of the crime, and previous convictions, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to have been too uneasible.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.