2. The lower court determined the sentence by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and agreed with the victim; and (b) the Defendant’s punishment history, age, sex conduct, environment, motive and means of the instant crime; and (c) the circumstances after the commission of the crime.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

The grounds for unfair sentencing (the majority of the previous forces, the criminal committed during the period of suspension of execution, the seriousness of the case, etc.) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the sentence against the defendant by the court below, and the above conditions of sentencing have been significantly changed in the trial.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.