Judgment

The crime of this case is a domestic violence case in which the defendant uses excessive materials, which are dangerous objects while fighting the victim and his/her husband and wife, and threatens as if he/she would directly harm his/her body, and whose nature of the crime is light in light of the circumstances of the crime, method of the crime, and degree of damage

Prior to the instant case, the Defendant appears to have exercised domestic violence several times during the family life, such as entering the victim as domestic violence or being subject to a protective disposition, etc., and the responsibility for such crime is not easy.

They did not receive a letter from the injured party.

On the other hand, the defendant is able to repent of his wrongness.

The crime of this case is a contingent crime committed by a prudently divided crime.

It is expected that the recovery of damage will be made to some extent through divorce action with the victim.

In addition to such circumstances, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, health status, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and where the sentencing of the first instance does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). In full view of the following: (a) the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant should be reversed to the extent that the sentence imposed by the Defendant ought to be reversed.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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