2. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant by finding the place of business of the victim who was divorced on several occasions and obstructing his/her business by assaulting and threatening him/her, and the nature of the crime is not very good. The method of committing the instant crime is also very large to threaten him/her, or to spread the gasoline prepared in advance in order to force him/her by carrying excessive force.

In addition, the defendant continued to commit an additional crime by finding the victim while being investigated as part of the crime of this case against the victim, and the defendant arrested the victim upon the victim's report, thereby threatening the victim to spread gasoline again. In light of the repetition of the above crime, the risk of recidivism is high.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime for three months in prison life and did not find a divorced victim; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol; (d) most of the instant crime is deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol; (c) the Defendant appears to have continuously been making efforts to refrain from repeating the instant crime, such as receiving hospital treatment to treat alcohol dependence after the judgment of the court of first instance; (d) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than a fine; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, living environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) all other circumstances constituting the condition of sentencing, including the following circumstances, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair.

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.