2. The lower court rendered the above sentence in consideration of the following favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of the suspension of execution; and (c) the Defendant committed a similar crime in the previous case; and (d) the Defendant was committed without wanting the Defendant’s punishment; (b) the victim’s injury was not severe; (c) the Defendant’s injury was against the Defendant’s sentence; and (d) the Defendant’s suspended sentence may be harsh to the Defendant when the previous suspended sentence is invalidated due to a sentence of imprisonment.

In full view of the circumstances taken into account by the lower court and all other conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background and consequence of the commission of the offense, means and consequence, size of the offense, and circumstances after the commission of the offense, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance in which the assessment or maintenance is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, the lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable and unreasonable.

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