2. The crime of this case is deemed to have committed the crime of this case under the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants were under the influence of alcohol in a restaurant operated by the victim, and (b) Defendant A obstructed the restaurant business of the victim by avoiding disturbance by taking the victim’s telephone, and by pushing the her husband, etc.; (c) Defendant A had a bad quality in light of the applicable law and content of the crime; (d) Defendant A had a record of criminal punishment for multiple violent crimes; and (c) Defendant A committed the crime of this case only one month after he was released from parole after having been sentenced to a punishment for special injury; and (d) Defendant B had a record of criminal punishment once a fine for the same kind of crime in 2017. However, this is deemed to have already been considered in the sentencing of the lower court.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances such as the confession of the crime of this case and the violation of their mistake, Defendant A’s payment of damages to the victim, and the victim does not want the punishment against Defendant A, as well as equity in sentencing with the same and similar cases, and other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of this case, including the Defendants’ respective ages, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.