2. The fact that the defendant, without any reason, destroyed another person's goods, did not take measures to recover particular damage, and that there was a history of punishment due to the crime that revealed violent inclinations, such as obstruction of duties, obstruction of performance of official duties, and injury, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, it is favorable to the defendant that the extent of actual damage is not severe, and that the damaged part is restored.

In addition, considering all the factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, the sentencing of the lower court is too unfasible and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.