2. The lower court determined the lower court, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed in a knife with the victim’s knife with a knife, with high risk of causing death; (b) the victim’s attempt to commit the instant crime was taken into account not less than 2 cm or cut, etc.; and (c) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime contingently in a state of imprueing with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with the victim; (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime; (e) the victim’s health was recovered; and (e) the victim wants to take the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant beyond wanting the Defendant’s punishment; and (e) the Defendant took into account the fact that there was no criminal punishment other than one time before the suspended sentence for the instant crime in 1971.

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Furthermore, the grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the prosecutor in this court are the circumstances that the court below had already taken into account when determining the defendant's punishment, and considering other materials presented in the course of the sentencing hearing in this court, it is too unreasonable to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is.