2. The Defendants committed the instant crime against good citizens without any special reason under the influence of alcohol.

Although all the Defendants had a history of having been subject to criminal punishment several times for past violent crimes, the circumstances that repeat the same kind of crime are also disadvantageous to the Defendants.

In light of this point, we agree with the prosecutor's assertion that the responsibility of the defendants is not less strict, but more strict punishment is necessary.

However, the degree of injury to the victim G is relatively less severe, and the loss of business between the victim I and K is not significant.

Defendant

B agreed with the victim K during the trial of the court below, and the defendant A already agreed with the victim G and the victim I before the trial of the court of first instance. The victims of this case did not want to be punished by the defendants.

In addition, the Defendants recognized all the facts charged in the instant case and reflected their depth, and have hardened to avoid causing problems due to drinking in the future.

Although the Defendants were often punished for violent crimes, considering the above circumstances, the Defendants’ age, social ties, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed unreasonable because it is too unfasible compared to the degree of criminal liability.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.