2. The judgment below rendered a sentence by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime with his head, etc. with his head, etc., leading the Defendant to booming the victim’s head, etc.; and (b) the method of committing the instant crime is very dangerous; and (c) the case was serious; (d) the victim first committed an assault against the Defendant as the iron processor; (e) the victim agreed with the victim; and (e) the Defendant had no record of having been punished for violent crimes; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, motive and means of the instant crime; and (e) other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, etc.

The grounds for unfair sentencing (the seriousness of a case, the poorness of a crime, etc.) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the sentence against the defendant, and the above conditions of sentencing have changed differently.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the 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.