2. The crime of this case is deemed to require strict punishment of Defendant on account of the following: (a) the Defendant, in colors the subject matter of rape on the new wall for more than three hours; (b) invaded on the room where the victim is suffering from rape; and (c) committed an attempted rape; and (d) committed an attempted rape; (b) committed an attempted rape without being aware of the fact that he/she had been subject to disposition that he/she had not been prosecuted even before committing the crime of this case; and (c) the Defendant committed an attempted rape without being aware of the fact that he/she had been subjected to disposition that he/she had not been prosecuted; and (d) the victim suffered from the crime of this case appears to have considerable mental and physical pain.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment; (c) the victim committed rape; (d) the commission of the crime of assault and intimidation is relatively minor; and (d) the Defendant did not have any record of having been sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment than the fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and other various sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime; and (d) the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not reasonable because the Defendant’

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.