2. The crime of this case, which was committed on November 11, 2015, was committed by the Defendant, while drinking alcohol together with his/her alcohol in the room of his/her age club, destruction of a gymnab, and thus, the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, and the Defendant has been punished 21 times for several crimes, and the Defendant has already been punished on November 11, 2015 by violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) by having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months for a period of 2 years, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months and was committed without being aware of it, and thus, it is also true that there is a need for strict punishment against the Defendant.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake, that the Defendant did not cause human life damage from the damage of the house in the age club room, that the Defendant agreed with the victim, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.