2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant has a record of being punished as a crime of the same kind, and that he did not agree with the victim.

However, considering all of the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, etc., when the Defendant led to the confession of the crime, and his mistake is divided into one another, and the part and degree of the injury are not heavy, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the lower

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That among the judgment below, the "suspected vehicle" of Paragraph (1) 3, 5, and 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act is a clerical error in the "Defendant Vehicle", and the "Article 2 (2) proviso 7 of the Act on the Crimes in the context of the application of the Act was added to mistake, and since it is apparent that the "the choice of each fine for punishment" was omitted in the "the choice of each fine for punishment of 1.0" after the ordinary concurrent competition clause, it is corrected to correct, delete, and add it ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on the Criminal Procedure).