2. The crime of this case on the part of the defendants was committed with the victim, who is a taxi engineer, and the defendant A sustained the victim's head debt and sustained several times, and the defendant B assaulted the victim's chest, and without any particular reason, committed the crime of this case, and did not reach an agreement with the victim; the defendant A did not have to reach an agreement with the victim; and the defendant A had the same kind of crime and the same criminal records as eight times, which are disadvantageous to the defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants divided and reflected the mistake, and the degree of injury to the victim caused by the instant crime is not much serious, and the extent of assault by Defendant B is minor, and the Defendants jointly and severally paid KRW 1.56 million to the victim in the civil litigation brought by the victim against the Defendants, and the Defendants paid KRW 1.56 million to the victim by depositing KRW 1.5 million for the victim, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

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