2. The Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles) and the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times for the same crime is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake, that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by contingent, that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime after 2004, and that the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim.

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., as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, since the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and it is not deemed unfair.

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.