2. The crime of this case requires strict punishment of Defendant on account of the following: (a) the Defendant thought that the Defendant committed the impergies of the victim, who is his wife, assaulted or threatened the victim, and suffered injury; and (b) the Defendant did not make any effort to recover damage up to the present time; and (c) the Defendant did not make any effort to recover damage.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime and made a mistake against the Defendant; and (b) there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime; (c) the instant crime ought to consider equity in the case where the Defendant rendered a judgment at the same time in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., which became final and conclusive against the Defendant; and (d) other all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.