2. The lower court, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant agreed with the victim solely with the victim that the victimized person does not want the Defendant’s punishment; (b) the victim’s injury was relatively minor; (c) the Defendant had been convicted of violence at least ten times (including actual punishment); and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution due to the instant crime; and (c) the sentence was imposed by taking account of various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime.

The grounds for unfair sentencing (such as criminal records, recidivism during the period of suspension of execution, violence recidivism, etc.) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to have been determined by the court below, taking into account sufficient factors in determining the sentence against the defendant, and such changes in the above sentencing conditions have been made in the trial.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the 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.