2) The Prosecutor’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the fact that there is only the fact that the Defendant was punished by a fine, and the fact that the injury suffered by the victim is relatively minor is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The defendant threatened the victim with a shouldered knife, a knife, a knife, and a knife, and the nature of the crime is very bad.

Although there was a history of punishment for violent crimes several times, the defendant did not agree with the victim, and did not receive the victim's letter of intent to commit the crime.

The violence, such as this case, has emerged as a social problem not only an internal one between the two parties with a relationship but also a social one, so there is a little possibility of criticism.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances surrounding the instant crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable to the extent that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, is unreasonable.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the Supreme Court Decision 76Do3375 Decided December 14, 1976 is different from the appeal filed in this case, and it is difficult to apply the above legal principle to this case).