The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the lecture of violent treatment of 80 hours) is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant did not know even though he had a history of having been subject to criminal punishment due to several identical crimes, such as assault, bodily injury, interference with business, etc., and again committed each of the instant crimes.

In light of the frequency, period, mode of conduct, and criminal records of the instant crime, the risk of recidivism is very high, and it is also necessary to strictly punish the instant crime.

It seems that the victims have not recovered, and the defendant has not made active efforts to do so.

However, the court below determined the punishment by taking into account all the above circumstances, and there is no special change in the sentencing conditions in the time of the judgment.

In full view of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant has no previous conviction or heavier than the suspended sentence; (c) the victims have not been injured; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (d) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is difficult to deem the lower court’s disposition that the Defendant was subject to suspended sentence of imprisonment is too una

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.