2. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten (10) years for the crime of indecent act by force in 2010 and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two (2) years for the crime of indecent act by force in 2010; (b) the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite being subject to a disposition that was not entitled to prosecution due to forced indecent act in 2011; and (c) the Defendant appears not to have been subject to prosecution due to the instant crime; (b) however, the Defendant’s crime of this case appears to have arisen from the mental problem of the Defendant; (c) however, the Defendant did not repeat the instant crime by continuously receiving the instant punishment until the Defendant completely recovers for the mental and medical treatment, recognizing his mental problem and having ceased for economic reasons.

The defendant's violent tendency is not revealed due to the crime committed on the alleys or in the alleys or in the new wall time, and it seems that the social ties are formed at a normal level by living in the workplace only within the family, and the mother of the defendant will also endeavor to treat the defendant.

In return, the defendant's workplace fees will also help the defendant to adapt to society.

In full view of the fact that the defendant's promise, the defendant's opportunity to live as a sound social member once again seems to be appropriate from the special prevention perspective, it does not seem unfair because the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

3. Accordingly, 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.