The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service) declared by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the record of fine, suspension of execution and punishment for the same kind of violent crime, etc., even though having been sentenced to punishment, and at the same time, committed the instant crime in light of the form and method of the instant crime, and the gravity and degree of the injury.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency; (c) the victim does not want to be punished by the Defendant under an agreement with the victim; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) all of the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too

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.

However, since it is apparent that ‘1. D' police interrogation protocol was erroneously omitted in the summary of evidence in the judgment of the court below, it is corrected that it was added ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.

.