2. In light of the fact that the defendant's records of punishment for the same kind of crime are up to three times, and that the defendant repeats and commits a similar veterinary act, the fact that the nature of the crime is poor is unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is recognized as all of his own crimes, the fact that the defendant is against the law, the fact that the defendant is receiving four-time blood speculation in a week and has hearing impairment, etc., the defendant seems to have reached the crime of this case due to economic difficulties, and there are some reasons to consider the motive of the crime of this case and the damage seems to be insignificant, and the fact that the defendant has no record of having been sentenced to more than the suspension of execution than the punishment by fine, etc.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.