2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendants had the history of criminal punishment for the same kind of violent crime several times, and in particular, Defendant A committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendants had been in the period of suspension of execution due to violent crime, and the degree of injury to the victim F is not minor and the form of the instant violent crime is not somewhat minor in light of the form of the instant violent crime.

However, the Defendants’ confession to commit the instant crime, and the instant crime is deemed to be a fighting match that occurred in the process of communicating with the victim under the influence of Defendant A, rather than a dispute between organized violence actors, and the instant crime is deemed to have occurred in the process of communicating with the victim under the influence of Defendant A, and the said Defendant also sustained injury in the process of the instant crime. As seen above, there are circumstances that may be considered in the motive and circumstance of the instant crime; the Defendants agreed to the victim in the course of the investigation, and the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendants; Defendant A committed the instant crime during the period of the suspended execution, without the invalidation or cancellation of the suspended execution as of the date of the first instance judgment; Defendant C did not have any criminal record of the same kind of violence after 200; Defendant C did not have much quantity of fake petroleum products stored by the Defendant; the relationship between the Defendants and the victim; the degree of the Defendants’ participation in the instant crime; and the age, character and conduct, motive of the Defendants; and the motive and consequence of the instant crime.

B. Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the prosecutor's objection.