2. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant is against the Defendant; and (b) the victim was the victim’s horse number.

In light of the favorable circumstances that the defendant and the defendant agreed smoothly with each other, there was a history of punishment several times for violent crimes, and the crime again was committed during the period of probation for the same kind of crime, and the degree of injury suffered by the victim is not less and less exceptionally considered. In addition, in consideration of the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances of the crime after the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case were determined.

The prosecutor asserts that the crime is committed during the period of probation, the victim's face is not clear enough when several times, the necessity of edification of the accused who has violent tendency, the amount of fine according to the exchange rate, etc. are illegal reasons for sentencing.

However, the above reasons are deemed to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and only the imprisonment is not deemed to conform to the purpose of the correction of the defendant. Considering the above conditions of sentencing, such as the background of the crime in this case and the relation with the victim, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfasible and unfair, as it is too unfasible.

Unlike the above sentencing conditions changed.

There is no reason to view it.

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.