2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant is deemed to have committed an act of violence against others in a multiple times without any justifiable reason, and as such, it is extremely poor in its nature, there are no circumstances where the Defendant received a letter of suspicion from the victims or reached an agreement among them, and there are multiple criminal records of violence. In particular, considering the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of intimidation carrying a deadly weapon prior to the instant case, and the Defendant was committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crimes for which two months have not passed yet, and the period of repeated crimes for which two months have not passed yet, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, it does not seem that the result of each of the crimes of this case, such as the fact that the defendant has recognized all of the crimes of this case from the investigative agency and reflected against all of the crimes of this case, and that the defendant suffered injury by violence of the defendant, etc., is not likely to cause serious damage to the victims, and the objective illegal acts of each of the crimes of this case are very significant since they are not limited to the extent that the duties of restaurant business

In full view of the facts that cannot be said to be the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too unfasible, even considering all the circumstances surrounding the instant crime, even if it is considered that the Defendant’s punishment is too unfasible.

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.