2. In light of the method by which the instant crime was committed, the facts that the nature of the crime was not light in light of the method of the instant crime, the Defendant was punished several times for the same type of crime, and in particular, he/she again commits a crime while being tried for a special injury similar to this case, and is highly likely to recommit a crime.

They look at the disadvantage of the state.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects his mistake, the fact that the defendant was suffering from suffering from the mental and physical illness led to the recovery and crime, and the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim. The crime of this case is a concurrent crime with the special injury in the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive and the crime of this case must consider equality with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and thus, cannot be deemed unfair. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.