2. The judgment of the Defendant: (a) threatened a victim who was in an internal relationship; (b) was arrested in the Defendant’s house to commit rape; and (c) was discovered to a police officer who was called out after having received a report to commit rape.

Considering the content and method of such crime by the defendant, in particular the physical and mental pain and shock that the victim experienced due to the above crime, the responsibility of the defendant cannot be deemed to be minor.

On the other hand, the defendant was committed by committing the crime of this case, against his wrongness, received a written indictment by mutual consent with the victim, and there is no criminal record punished for violence or sexual crime before.

Although the Defendant committed a crime without abandoning the victim, the Defendant did not have access to or contact with the victim in the future, and the rape crime was committed in the course of attempted rape.

These points are the circumstances to be considered as positive sentencing factors for the defendant.

In full view of all the circumstances, including these circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is determined to be within the appropriate range of sentence corresponding to its liability, and it does not seem that the sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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.