2. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., taking into account the following factors: (a) the recidivism was committed during the period of suspension of execution due to a crime of fraud, interference with the performance of duties; (b) the same class of force was more than four times; and (c) the degree of injury was not serious; and (d) the sentence was imposed by taking into account the circumstances after the crime.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

As required by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, it is recognized that the nature of the crime is not good, that the defendant does not seem to be against the defendant while denying the crime, that the victim is dead or has not recovered from damage, that the same record is several times, and that it is a crime during the suspension of execution.

However, since these circumstances have already been considered in the court below, the sentencing conditions mentioned above have been significantly changed in the court below.

It is difficult to see it.

In light of the above sentencing conditions, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unffortunately unfortunate.

Therefore, prosecutor's 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.