2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the nature of the instant crime is not good, the fact that the instant crime was committed during the period of repeated crime, the fact that the Defendant is against himself, and the fact that the Defendant deposited KRW 2.5 million for the victim, etc., respectively.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, other than the circumstances that take account of the current and unfavorable circumstances, the Defendant was in an internal relationship with the victim, and the civil litigation filed by the victim against the Defendant was concluded on April 4, 2017 by the ruling of recommending reconciliation (the Supreme Court Branch Branch Decision 2016 Guide 108306, 2017 Guide 3231 (Counterclaim), etc.) as favorable to the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, health, and consequence, the circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, the scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to have been adequate, and the judgment of the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unfasible as the prosecutor asserts.

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.