2. The lower court, based on the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission (one month to one year), sentenced two years of suspended sentence to 8 months of imprisonment in consideration of the following: (a) the mitigation area (one month to eight months); (b) the mitigation area (one month to one month); (c) the reduction area (a general assault) the reduction area (a special mitigation person); (d) the physical and mental minor crime (a) the mitigation area (1 month to six months); and (e) the mitigation area (a special mitigation person) the mitigation area (i) the mitigation area (one month to six months); and (g) the scope of the final mitigation due to the increase of the number of minor offenders who are not mental and physical: (d) the period of suspended sentence for 1 month to 11 month.

In full view of the fact that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in light of the fact that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in particular, the defendant's stimulative disorder of stimulative disorder of the defendant had influenced the occurrence of the instant case.

There is no circumstance that it is unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances, and result of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too unfasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.