2. It is recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she committed the instant crime even though he/she had been sentenced to a fine, suspension of execution, and punishment for ten times or more, and that he/she did not agree with the victim even though he/she had been sentenced to a fine once, suspension of execution, four times of punishment, and three times of punishment for the same type of crime.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant divided his mistake; (b) the amount of damage appears to be not significant; (c) the damaged goods were returned to the victim; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, such as the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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