The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unfluent.

2. The lower court: (a) took into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., under which the Defendant was committed, and the victim was punished for the Defendant’s emotional impulse and wanting to be punished; (b) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (c) there was no history of criminal punishment; and (d) there was no injury inflicted on the Defendant; and (c) the injury inflicted by the victim was not relatively heavy; and (d) determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking into account various sentencing conditions set forth in the trial, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior;

In full view of the conditions for sentencing as expressed in the judgment of the court below and the scope of the recommendation of the Sentencing Committee, the sentencing of the court below is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, and there is no change in the conditions for sentencing that can be deemed to be unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion cannot be accepted, since the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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.