2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Each of the instant crimes appears to have suffered considerable sexual humiliation and mental suffering due to each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as: (a) the victims were unable to receive an application from the victims; and (b) the victims want to be punished by the Defendant.

However, the defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing each of the crimes in this case, and there is no record of punishment for the same crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of each of the instant offenses, means and methods, and all of the sentencing factors revealed in the trial process, such as the instant records and circumstances after the commission of the offense, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair because it is too low.

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.