2. In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant who attempted to rape a victim who is a juvenile of 15 years of age, and the statutory penalty is more than five years of age (the wholly amended Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012; an imprisonment for life was added to the statutory penalty); the victim’s sound that the victim would live in the course of the rape of the Defendant, hearing sound that the victim would live in the course of the rape of the Defendant, was suspended from rape; the Defendant cannot be deemed to have retired from rape; and the victim could have suffered considerable mental pain due to the crime of this case, the Defendant’s criminal liability is not easy.

However, in full view of all the circumstances that reflect the Defendant’s mistake and were high school students under 18 years of age at the time of the instant crime, the instant crime was committed in the attempted attempt by the Defendant, the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim, the Defendant did not have any criminal record in the same kind, and other conditions of sentencing specified in the records and arguments, such as the family relationship of the Defendant, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant cannot be deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.