2. Determination is recognized that the Defendant has been subject to a fine twice as a crime of the same kind of violence, two times of suspended sentence, and two times of punishment, and that there has been three times of punishment of a fine due to a crime of the same race. Each of the instant crimes is recognized as follows: (a) the Defendant in prison committed a crime of the same kind by assaulting a correctional officer, obstructing the performance of official duties and causing injury at the same time; and (b) there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant in consideration of the light of the public authority;

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant has led to the confession of all crimes, and that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case by contingency, the fact that the degree and degree of injury, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, etc., and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 257 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the crime subject to the applicable provisions of the judgment of the court below). However, since it is apparent that the "Article 257 of the Criminal Act" was omitted from this error, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.