A. In view of the fact that even though the prosecutor had a large number of criminal punishment for the same crime as this case, even though he/she was under repeated crime, the crime of assault and obstruction of business of this case is very poor and no measures are taken to recover damage, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of all of the crimes of this case, and reflects the mistake in depth, and that the degree of damage is minor, the above punishment of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The court below sentenced the above punishment to the defendant on the grounds of sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The prosecutor and the defendant's assertion are deemed to have been given due consideration to the above circumstances in the court below, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing after the judgment of the court below, as well as other factors such as the defendant's age and occupation, character and character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too minor in light of the above factors as stated in the records of this case.

It is not likely that it is improper or uneasible.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition