2. In light of all the sentencing conditions in the instant case, considering the following as a whole: (a) the Defendant filed a false complaint against a indecent act by compulsion or rape with A in order to conceal the fact that it was revealed that it was committed by the Defendant; (b) the nature of the crime was bad; (c) the Defendant was the first offender; (d) the Defendant was denying the commission of the crime to the investigation agency and the court below; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the crime were not good; (e) there were circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes; and (e) there were submission of written applications to the effect that the former husband G was disturbing the Defendant at the trial; and (e) other sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation, environment, balance with the sentencing in the same case, etc., it is not deemed unfair to deem that the Defendant’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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.

(However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, Article 25(1) of the judgment of the court below, the phrase “aggravated increase in the penalty prescribed in the Non-Dismissal Act” in Chapter 5 of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected to mean that “aggravating concurrent crimes within the scope of the total sum of