2. According to the fact that the instant crime was committed by a large number of persons, including the Defendant, by taking part in the judgment, and the use of dangerous objects, etc., the nature of the crime is bad in light of the method of the crime, the time of detention is shorter, and there is a record of being sentenced to the suspension of indictment for the same kind of crime, it is reasonable to punish the Defendant.

However, there may also be circumstances that may be considered for the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime in mind to assist the disabled, (b) the Defendant did not assault the victim with any dangerous object; (c) the Defendant opened the door to the police officer at the place of confinement; (d) the primary offender was the first offender; (c) the Defendant was committing the instant crime; and (d) the amount of partial damage deposited.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, there is no special change of circumstances that make the lower court and the punishment different from the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

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.