2. The crime of this case committed jointly with D is that the defendant deprived of the victim's freedom of residence or physical freedom against the victim's will for five hours, and the crime is not good, and that the defendant has a record of being subject to four juvenile protection measures, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, that the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, and that the defendant is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment except the disposition of juvenile protection by the crime of this kind.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and the circumstances and results of each of the instant offenses, all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.