2. The fact that the Defendant, who entered a female toilet for the purpose of self-defense, was not less vulnerable to the charge of the instant crime, and that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he was ordered to suspend indictment by committing similar acts in the past, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of all other factors such as the defendant's age, sex, occupation and environment, background leading to the crime in this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing of the court below is reasonable within the reasonable scope of its discretion, considering the following factors: (a) the defendant has no record of criminal punishment before the crime in this case; (b) the defendant repents and reflects his wrong; (c) the defendant does not move up to the defendant's shooting; and (d) the defendant's age (in June 1998, 198, 19 years old) seems to have a relatively high possibility of improving personality and behavior; and (e) the defendant's age (in addition, 19 years old) seems to be more likely to improve his personality and behavior.

Therefore, we cannot accept the prosecutor's unfair argument of sentencing.

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