2. The judgment of the defendant has a record of being punished several times due to the same crime, and in particular, the fact that the defendant again committed the crime of this case of the same kind during the grace period even though he/she was sentenced to a fine on one occasion, which caused the crime of interference with business during the suspended execution period, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, it is against the defendant's wrong recognition of his mistake, and the degree of power or interference with business used for the crime of this case is relatively minor, and the victim D expressed its intention not to have the defendant want to be punished at an investigative agency, and the convenience point of the crime of this case also desires to leave the defendant's wife in the trial of the party, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

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

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.