2. The defendant, upon receiving a report from the injured party, does not seek any retaliation against the injured party for the purpose of retaliation.

Intimidation and injury was inflicted upon the face of drinking. In light of the motive and purpose of the crime, the nature of the crime is not easy in light of the motive and purpose of the crime, and the defendant again commits the crime of this case even though he had the record of criminal punishment for the same kind of violent crime several times.

However, on the other hand, the degree of injury suffered by the victim is relatively minor; each of the crimes of this case should be considered in equity with the case where each of the crimes of this case is concurrent with the crime of violating the Immigration Control Act finalized on October 21, 2015; the defendant misleads and reflects the defendant; the defendant deposits one million won for the victim at the court below, and deposits one million won for the victim in addition, in the court below, and deposits one million won for the victim in addition, it should be favorable or considered to the defendant.

In addition, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasy and it is not recognized as unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, since the proviso of Article 42, which is written on the aggravated portion of concurrent crimes in the application column of the judgment of the court below, is clear, it shall be corrected to delete it in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.