2. The Defendant’s crime of this case committed by the Defendant is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s baring of the opening of the instant crime was fluencing the opening of 7 miles from the opening of the Victim D; and (b) the Defendant’s baring of the opening of 7 miles from the opening of the Victim D; and (c) threatening the Victim; (d) the police officers dispatched upon receipt of the report to inflict an injury and interfere with legitimate performance of official duties; and (e) the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the Victim D; and (e) the Defendant was punished for the

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant acknowledges the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, that the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine, and that the victim D paid medical expenses to the mother of the victim D is favorable to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc. of this case and the conditions for sentencing as shown in the arguments, the sentence of the court below is deemed appropriate as a sentence within the scope of the discretion of sentencing.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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