The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim expressed his/her intent to the effect that the victim does not want the punishment only by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles (Assault) or entering the arrest report of the case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of 160 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 1, 2017, prior to the institution of public prosecution of this case, the lower court determined that the indictment of this part constitutes “when the procedure for institution of public prosecution is in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and becomes null and void” under Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the victim expressed his/her intent not to be punished against the Defendant.

Examining the records of this case closely with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the judgment of the court below, there were errors in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles

It appears that the victim made a statement to the effect that the police officer dispatched on the day of the instant case does not want punishment for the assault committed by the defendant, and that the victim reversed the intention or expressed his intent to punish the defendant.

There is no evidence to see that there is no evidence. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance is discretionary when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the first instance sentencing trial process.