2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant is a threat to the victim D working in the restaurant, and it is not good that the crime is committed by threatening the victim E who is the owner of the restaurant to find the restaurant at the same time.

The defendant was unable to receive correspondence from the victims or to agree with the victims.

However, the defendant recognizes his mistake and reflects his fault.

The degree of intimidation of the defendant cannot be seen as serious.

In addition to the punishment of a fine on one occasion due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2001, a defendant has no record of any other crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime was committed, there is no special circumstance or circumstance newly considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, the sentence that the lower court rendered is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

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