2. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed the instant crime under consideration of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s intimidation to spread a video image against the victim, and by inducing the victim to a telecom, etc., that the Defendant did not have any particular criminal record, and expressed his/her intent to compensate the victim for the damage and not to punish the victim, and that the Defendant does not actually spread the video, etc., the lower court determined the sentence within the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission.

As can be seen, the circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing asserted by the prosecutor as the sentencing factor are already considered in the original court’s determination of the punishment, and there are no new circumstances or special changes that can be reflected in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower court.

In addition, even if the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the various conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant pleadings and records, such as the circumstances after the crime, are comprehensively considered, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too light beyond the discretionary scope.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.