2. In light of the following: (a) the judgment of the court; (b) the Defendant recognized the mistake of the Defendant; (c) agreed with all victims; (d) the mother who must provide support and the woman of matrimonial engagement in front of marriage is a favorable reason for sentencing; (c) the background and method of the instant crime; and (d) the degree of injury to victims, etc., without any special reason; (d) the Defendant has been punished several times including imprisonment for the same kind of crime related to violence; and (e) the Defendant has the history of having been punished several times, including imprisonment for the same kind of crime related to violence; (d) the Defendant escaped without the attendance of the investigative agency after committing the crime in 2011; and (e) continuous escape after committing the crime of special injury in 2013, and (e) the Defendant was present at the police station only after having agreed with the victims.

In full view of all the above sentencing factors, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, career, family relation, economic situation, background and motive leading up to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other factors pertaining to the sentencing indicated in the records and arguments on the change of circumstances, the judgment below’s punishment is deemed appropriate and the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

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