2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. were determined by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s intent to punish the Defendant; (b) the Defendant was a minor problem with customers; (c) the Defendant’s business was obstructed by the victim’s main business; and (d) the Defendant did not focus on business damage; and (c) the Defendant agreed with the victim on the condition that the victim did not find any intent to punish the Defendant more than the main points of the victim; and (d) the victim did not have any intent to punish the Defendant; (e) the records of the same crime several times in favor of the victim; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (e) the sentence was imposed upon the Defendant by taking account of various sentencing factors in the

The grounds for unfair sentencing (the necessity of strict punishment, the existence of the same criminal record, and the recidivism during the period of probation) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently taken into account in determining the sentence against the defendant by the court below, and any other change in the above sentencing conditions.

There are no circumstances to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is too unfluened within the reasonable scope of the discretion, and it does not seem unfair.

The prosecutor's 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.