2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished several times for the same kind of crime in the past, as well as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period during which the Defendant was suspended from execution of the same crime, and that the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim, the Defendant’s liability for the crime of this case may be mitigated. However, the Defendant’s confessions the instant crime and is in depth against the Defendant, the degree of damage seems to be relatively minor, the Defendant did not have any record of having been sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime, the lower court did not choose a fine in consideration of all the above circumstances of the Defendant, but did not impose a fine in an amount equivalent to the maximum statutory penalty, and all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion is unreasonable, as it is without merit.

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.