2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

B. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking account of the following factors: (a) under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, even though having multiple criminal records of the instant crime, having committed the instant crime; (b) inasmuch as the Defendant carried dangerous objects with himself and did not reach an agreement with the victim, the degree of injury to the victim does not seem to have been insignificant; (c) the Defendant was making own effort to reach an agreement; (d) the Defendant appears to have died and did not reach an agreement due to other circumstances after the instant case; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, motive and means of the instant crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc.; and (e) taking into account other favorable factors, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and taking account of various sentencing conditions

(c)

The reason for the court below's improper sentencing, as claimed by the prosecutor, seems to be the reason for the court below's determination of the defendant's punishment, and the above conditions of sentencing changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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