2. The crime of this case was committed by assaulting the victim on the ground that the victim living together by the defendant had a contact with another male, and was in need of approximately four weeks of medical treatment, and by threatening the victim with a knife which is a dangerous object, the contents and methods of the crime are very poor.

Furthermore, the Defendant was under the period of repeated crime at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant appears to reflect the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant reimburses the damage caused by the instant crime and reimburses the victim for his/her personal liability; and (c) the victim does not want to be punished by the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant does not have any criminal record of the same kind of violence; and (e) other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too un

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the part of the lower judgment’s criminal records, the part of “criminal records” in the summary of evidence, and the part of “aggravated aggravation of repeated crimes” in the application of statutes is clear that the term of office due to mistake, and thus, ex officio deletion of the same pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is corrected.