2. Determination

A. The Defendant, even before committing the instant crime, had been able to drink several times prior to committing the instant crime, and was unable to have avoided the disturbance at the victim’s workplace. On October 20, 201, the Defendant assaulted the victim D and abused other punishments. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the Defendant, by asserting that he unilaterally received from the victims, submitted a false complaint and submitted a false complaint to the victims that it is not good to form the crime, and that the Defendant denied the crime up to the trial and did not make efforts to recover from damage.

However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not have the same criminal record; (b) the degree of injury suffered by the victim D was not serious; and (c) the other party was not prosecuted by the victim; and (d) the Defendant’s age, relationship with the victims, motive, means and methods of the instant crime; and (e) circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable merely because it is too uneasible.

B. 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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.