2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine four times due to the crime of injury, obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and the Defendant committed the instant crime even during the repeated period due to the previous narcotics crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, which committed the instant crime, and the degree of harmful acts, such as selling the face of the victim of injury by drinking, and threatening the moneter several times, etc., and that the Defendant was subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for drinking driving in 201, even though he had the history of being punished three times due to drinking driving, such as being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for drinking driving in 201, it is difficult to deny that it is necessary to sentence more severe punishment to the Defendant.

However, it is important to consider the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant took the attitude of recognizing and reflecting the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim of the crime of injury at an investigative agency; and (c) the Defendant voluntarily hospitalized at the hospital on January 19, 2016, before he committed the instant crime, and tried to treat his mental symptoms, such as shock disorder, etc.; (d) during the instant crime, the crime of injury, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the crime of injury, etc., committed out of the hospital with the permission of the said hospital, and the fact that the Defendant did not have been punished for the same kind of crime for about four years after he was punished for drinking driving around 201.

Considering the above circumstances and the overall circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, health condition, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below is determined to be within the proper scope of sentencing discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.