2. As to the grounds of appeal, the Defendant already had the record of being punished several times due to the same kind of violence, etc. in this case, and the victim’s attitude is not in mind, resulting in an injury by placing rubber straw, provokinging cargo, etc. on the ground that the victim’s attitude is not in mind, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime. The Defendant committed the instant crime without good faith while being tried due to the crime of violence, etc. separate from this case, and committed the instant crime, and did not agree with, or did not reimburse, the victim, etc., that are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, on the other hand, the Defendant’s confession of the crime and the judgment of suspension of execution becomes final and conclusive on September 6, 2014 by this court on the one-year period of imprisonment with prison labor for assault, etc. In addition, considering the fact that the instant case ought to be judged simultaneously with the crime of assault, etc. for which judgment became final and conclusive, the result of injury is not relatively heavy, and examining the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is appropriate, and the amount is not unreasonable.

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