The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant continued to have frighten in the game with the victim D while having frightened with the victim D, and caused an injury to a part of the victim’s fright which requires approximately four weeks of treatment on one’s own part. The degree of damage is not easy, and the damage was not recovered, and the Defendant was punished for ten times of the same or similar crime.

However, the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court (the scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four months to one year and six months; and the sentence of the same kind (the period of less than ten years after the completion of the execution) that is not a repeated offense is considered as a person who is a general person, and the defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, as well as various circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, are considered, it is difficult to view the sentence imposed by the court below as being too unjustifiable.

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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.