2. The Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence in December 19, 201 and was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence in December 19, 2013 due to a crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act on December 19, 2013, such as a knife, knife, etc., which is a dangerous object, and that he/she committed the instant crime.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant is recognized as committing the instant crime; (b) the Defendant is against the Defendant’s prior domicile; (c) the victim wants the Defendant’s prior domicile; (d) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime in a somewhat contingent manner under the influence of alcohol; (c) there was no record of punishment for violent crimes since 191; (d) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence; and (e) there was a somewhat harsh aspect for the Defendant to be sentenced to the suspended sentence; and (e) other circumstances that form the condition for sentencing as indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, family relationship, etc.; and (e) the lower court’s punishment is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable; and

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.