The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and probation) declared by the court below is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant on the grounds of the Defendant’s complaint against the victim, who was in the front place, thereby putting the victim a walk and threatening him to leak gas, and the nature of the crime is serious due to a large accident, and the victim also wants a strong punishment against the Defendant.

However, there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the following: (a) the defendant was frequently disputed with the victim who was living together; (b) the defendant appears to have committed the instant crime with drinking; (c) the defendant was aware of the risk of his act late and reflected in depth; (d) the crime of this case did not actually cause damage to human life or property; (c) there was no history of criminal punishment for the same crime; (d) the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; (e) the defendant's children want to support the defendant's wife; and (e) the defendant has to support two children who are students.

As above, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, family relation, etc., even if imposing the treatment within the society, such as the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, which added the probation to the defendant, seems to sufficiently have special preventive effects, it is recognized that the sentence imposed on the defendant within the scope of the recommended punishment (one year or more) set in the sentencing guidelines is within the proper scope of the punishment according to the defendant's responsibility, and that it is unreasonable.