2. The Defendant committed the instant crime under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a crime related to violence, such as the crime of assault, etc., on several occasions during the period of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, which was sentenced to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.). The instant crime is deemed to have committed the instant crime by allowing the Defendant to inflict an injury upon the victim E, destroying a vehicle owned by the victim F, resulting in resistance to the arrest of a flagrant offender due to the said crime, damaging patrol cars, and causing damage to the police officer, leading the victim I to walking or asking the victim I who is a police officer, and is very poor.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant agreed with the victim E and F only; (b) deposited KRW 1,00,000 for the victim I; (c) reimbursed the patrol car repair expenses; and (d) the Defendant has been making efforts to recover from damage by compensating the victim I; (b) the Defendant was aware of the instant crime and has to support the wife and two children; and (c) other circumstances that form the condition for sentencing as indicated in the instant case’s sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too uneasible, and thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is

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