2. It is unnecessary to strictly punish the Defendant on the ground that the crime of this case, which threatened the victim, was committed while the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment for destroying the property owned by the victim, carrying the excessive excess, which is a dangerous object, even though he/she was subject to criminal punishment, is bad, and the damage is not recovered.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant appears to have the attitude of reflecting the recognition of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment of suspension of qualification or heavier punishment for the same crime; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background of the instant crime, relationship between the Defendant and the victim; and (d) the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and theories of changes, such as the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it does not seem unfair since the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair

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.