2. The crime of this case by the judgment of the court below is found to be disadvantageous to the defendant, such as that the defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim D for about 14 days, and assaulted the victims on two occasions, in light of the content of the crime, the liability for the crime is grave, and the defendant has not yet received any remedy from the victims, etc.

However, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, where the first instance court has no change in the conditions of sentencing and the first instance sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The unfavorable circumstances against the recognized defendant do not fall under any special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below, and do not fall under any other special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below, and considering the circumstances that become the conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, age, happiness, environment, etc., the sentence against the defendant cannot be deemed unfair because the court below's punishment against the defendant is too unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.