2. Each of the instant crimes committed on board the victim C, each of which was found at the victim C’s house, where the Defendant had been in a knife for about two months, and had not opened the door, the key door locker was forced by force, and the victim’s house was arrested and assaulted the victim, thereby causing injury in need of medical treatment for six years, and the victim’s knife is threatening, threatening the victim F at the time of the said victim’s house in a knife, and threatened the victim’s house with the knife and the knife.

However, it is reasonable to respect each of the crimes of this case where: (a) the Defendant recognizes and reflects each of the crimes of this case; (b) all of the victims have reached an agreement with the victims; and (c) the Defendant has been punished three times due to violence-related crimes; and (b) the final punishment is at intervals of about ten years in around 2007; (c) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment; and (d) the lower court’s sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), and other various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, environment, sex behavior, motive for the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s excessive punishment is unfair.

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.