2. The crime of this case, which is a dangerous thing, is deemed to have been committed by the Defendant while threatening the victim D, and the criminal liability is grave in light of the substance of the crime, and the Defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, and the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant are recognized.

However, it seems reasonable for the court below to respect the determination of sentencing in our criminal litigation law, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The unfavorable circumstances against the above recognized defendant do not correspond to changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below since the decision of the court below since the decision of the court below was rendered, and the victim does not want criminal punishment of the defendant, and the family members of the defendant want to take advantage of the social relation of the defendant, such as the victim's prior action, and the defendant's family members want to take advantage of the circumstances of the sentencing in this case, such as the defendant's age, behavior, environment, etc.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.