The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because it is too unfasible to the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and eight months of imprisonment).

Judgment

The sentence of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the contents of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and in-depth nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s view (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015) by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the scope of discretion and is somewhat different from the appellate court’s view (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant committed an injury to the Defendant, who is a female living together during the repeated period, including 4 weeks of drinking and drinking clothes, and the Defendant did not suffer from injury to the victim and the victim’s face in the process of excessive treatment.

The defendant's mistake is recognized.