2. The crime of this case is not likely to be committed in a case where the Defendant refused to pay the food value equivalent to KRW 300,000, by force, and thereby obstructing the main business by force, such as neglecting the table blicks or blicking a large amount, etc.

The Defendant had been sentenced to punishment once, twice a suspended sentence, twice a fine, eight times a fine, and five times a fine for an offense related to violence, and even if he/she was punished for a repeated crime, he/she again committed the instant crime, instead of being familiar with it, even though he/she was during the repeated crime period.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant appears to reflect the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime; (b) the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment; (d) the background and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair as it is excessively unfeasible.

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.