2. The instant crime was committed solely on the ground that it is a horse to disregard the victim who has been delivered, and subsequently rapes and inflicts bodily injury upon the victim, and the victim’s money is very disadvantageous to the crime as a matter of theft.

In addition, in light of the fact that the sentence of larceny was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and the execution of the sentence was not more than one year after the completion of the sentence, and that it again led to the crime of larceny in this case, it seems that the defendant requires a serious punishment.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant did not have the record of sexual crimes, and the victim’s injury appears to have committed the instant crime, and the Defendant appears to have committed a contingent crime, and reflects the fact that the Defendant fell in the third floor immediately after the instant crime was committed, and suffered two legs and spines in need of 12 weeks in the process of escape (after the instant crime was immediately transmitted to the hospital immediately after the commission of the crime, and was detained by the court of first instance on the day when the Defendant appeared in the court of first instance) and all other circumstances constituting the condition of sentencing, it is not deemed unreasonable to deem that the Defendant’s sentencing is too unreasonable to the extent that the sentencing against the Defendant is reversed.

The 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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.