2. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed a crime against a female victim, who is vulnerable to the crime, and committed a violence several times during the new wall duration, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the nature of the crime is not good in light of the process and method of the crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the grace period without being aware of the suspension of execution of imprisonment due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties; (c) the injury was not recovered; and (d) the victim complained of the severe punishment and pain of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant seems to have suffered from the entire crime and reflect in depth the Defendant’s mistake; (c) while fighting with the victim, the Defendant appears to have committed a contingent crime by losing self-defense power with the victim; (d) while fighting with the victim, the Defendant was also somewhat or was assaulted from the victim; (d) the degree of injury the victim suffered; and (e) the record and circumstances of the instant crime and the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s environment during the recent 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor or more; and (e.

The grounds for the unfair sentencing (reoffending during the period of suspension of execution, agreement, etc.) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the sentence against the defendant, and the above conditions of sentencing have changed differently.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and thus, in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.