2. However, the case is very serious for the victim as a matter of which the defendant's face is taken by drinking to the face of the victim and eventually leads the victim to the real name of the victim by going to the left side of the victim.

However, the crime of this case seems to have been committed by the victim who works together at the gas station and the cost of the trial incurred at the gas station, and it seems that the crime of this case appeared to have been committed by the victim and the other contingently.

Although the defendant was sentenced to punishment for larceny, or was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for special larceny, the defendant was not sentenced to punishment for bodily injury as in this case.

The defendant seems to reflect his mistake in this case by living in custody for a period of two months.

The defendant does not want to punish the victim by mutual consent with the victim.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all the circumstances constituting the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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