2. Although the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime four times, the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime, and that the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim even until the Defendant was in the first instance, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case for the first time, and against the fact that this case was committed by the injured party to the hospital, while the injured party reported that the injured party would take a bath to the person concerned with the hospital, and there are circumstances to be considered in the circumstance, etc. in favor of the defendant.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unfasible as the prosecutor asserts.

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