2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, takes into account (i) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances; (ii) the degree of assault in this case is relatively minor; (iii) the circumstances favorable; and (iv) some of the circumstances surrounding the crime were taken into account; and (iii) the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine for the last ten years; and (iv) determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account all the following factors: the Defendant’s age, family relation, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

As above, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the proceedings of the instant case, and there are no other special changes in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is too unfasible.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above 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.