2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant, without any particular reason, assaulting or injuring victims on several occasions, interfering with the victims’ work, damage property, and interfere with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers. In light of the frequency, mode, etc. of the crime, the Defendant continued to commit a crime even after he was arrested as a flagrant offender by committing a part of the crime, and even after he was released, is disadvantageous to the fact that most of the damage from each of the instant crimes has not been recovered.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant made a confession of all of the crimes of this case with no criminal power, and the defendant made a compensation to the victim D of the crime of causing property damage as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of this case in the judgment below, the victim Z of the crime of causing property damage and special violence as stated in Articles 10 and 11 of the crime of this case in the judgment below is not subject to punishment against the defendant, and the defendant's wife wanting to take the action against the defendant.

Considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant records and pleadings, including the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s judgment cannot be deemed unreasonable to have exceeded, or maintain, the reasonable bounds of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.