2. In light of the method and means of the instant crime committed by the Defendant, the degree of damage, etc., the nature of the crime is not less than that of the Defendant, and the fact that the agreement with the victim or full damage has not been restored to the present day, etc. However, the Defendant does not repeat the instant crime. Meanwhile, considering the various circumstances of the Defendant, the lower court appears to have sentenced two years of suspension of execution within the scope of imprisonment with prison labor for up to 6 months within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines in full consideration of the following circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it possible for the lower court to change the sentence. The degree of assault is relatively minor, the Defendant takes advantage of the victim’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, the Defendant’s motive, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, the relationship with the victim, and family relationship, etc., the lower court’s assertion that the Defendant sentenced the sentencing of this case is reasonable and unreasonable is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.