2. The lower court, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) the Defendant had no previous conviction exceeding the fine; (c) the Defendant threatened a female living together with a knife, which is a dangerous object on the ground that the Defendant was made, by threatening the victim, a female living together with a knife; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (e) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., was sentenced to imprisonment (two years of suspension of execution in six months, and forfeiture).

The reason for the court below's improper sentencing, as claimed by the prosecutor, seems to have been sufficiently considered in determining the defendant's punishment, and otherwise changed the above sentencing conditions.

There are no circumstances to see the above sentencing conditions and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines [the sentence of the court below is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the basic area (from June to June 1) of the four types of intimidation (Habitual, Cumulative, Cumulative, Special Intimidation) (the basic area (from June to June 1)].

The 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 grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.