2. The lower court, based on positive sentencing factors, determined the above punishment within the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant was prior to two or more suspended sentence, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the suspended sentence period; (b) the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself; (c) the victim’s injury is relatively minor; and (d) the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment through an agreement with the victim.

In full view of such factors as the Defendant’s age, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, the circumstances and contents of the instant crime, and other various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the arguments in the instant case including the Defendant’s age, criminal records, personality and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances after the instant crime, the scope of the recommended sentence and the criteria for the suspension of execution based on the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission, the lower court’s sentence is sufficiently recognized as belonging to the scope of the appropriate punishment according to its responsibility

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing 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.