The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (4 million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. The crime of this case is not a good crime as it prevents the Defendant from running his business by bringing the Defendant to the employee at the convenience store and avoiding the riot.

The Defendant is highly likely to be subject to criticism because he/she committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she committed the instant crime, even though he/she was in a repeated offense period, more than ten times.

The fact that the defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party is also disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and opposed to his mistake.

The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in contingency under the influence of alcohol.

The degree of damage is not significant.

There is also a situation in which the Defendant was unable to live with the enemy parents, such as growing up in a high-income clinic, etc.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing circumstances shown in the records and theories of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, family environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too uneasy and unreasonable.

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 on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.