2. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant fully acknowledged the instant crime; (b) the instant crime was caused by the aggravation of management; (c) the previous conviction and the fact that there was a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act; (d) the Defendant has no record of the same kind of punishment; (b) the damage incurred by the instant crime is relatively large; and (c) the Defendant’s injury was less likely to have been incurred; and (d) the Defendant’s injury was disadvantageous to him; and (d) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment

The reason for the improper sentencing (whether damage was repaid, degree of damage) alleged by the prosecutor is that the court below had already considered the defendant's punishment in determining the defendant, or that the above sentencing conditions were changed.

In addition to the circumstances that can not be seen as circumstances that are difficult to view, and considering the fact that G (the complainant’s representative) is not wanting to punish the Defendant in the trial of the case, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.