2. The judgment follows: (a) the Defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years and 6 months due to the crime of bodily injury in 2004, and the Defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of 4 years and 6 months; (b) the Defendant appears to have been continuously committed violent crimes; (c) the act of interference with the business of the victim is deemed to have been continued repeatedly; (d) the Defendant’s act of interference with the business was unfavorable to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant recognized and reflects the instant crime; (d) the victim was not subject to the Defendant’s punishment; (d) the Defendant did not have any record of punishment exceeding the fine; (e) the Defendant did not have been sentenced to a suspended sentence due to the above injury; (e) there was no other extenuating circumstance or change in circumstances; and (e) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the trial process including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the following circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor’s allegation in the above is 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.