2. The crime of this case is a matter of damage to the front glass of the victim who previously reported the defendant to the previous charge of assault, etc. to the extent of repairing expenses equivalent to KRW 520,000,00, which is not sufficient in light of the motive, etc. of the crime, and the defendant had a record of criminal punishment several times prior to the crime. In particular, on June 5, 2015, the former District Court sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of four months for a crime of intrusion upon residence, and sentenced to a suspended sentence of 17 days after the judgment became final and conclusive on June 13, 2015, and went to the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, deposited KRW 300,00 for the victim, the fact that the victim could have recovered from damage caused by the automobile insurance purchased by the victim, and the defendant seems to have not good economic conditions as a recipient of basic living, and had experienced depression and legaration, etc., which are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the court below’s punishment is too unfasible and unfair, and thus, 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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.