2. The Defendant attempted to rape a victim who visited his/her office, and committed considerable injury to the victim during the course of such rape. In light of the details and details of the crime, the nature of the crime is very bad.

The victim received serious sexual humiliation and mental impulse as well as physical damage due to the instant crime.

Nevertheless, up to the trial below, the Defendant denied the instant crime and caused the victim to undergo the secondary damage that the victim appeared and testified in the court.

Furthermore, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of quasi-rape, and the defendant was not aware of the fact that he was under the suspended sentence, and again committed the crime of this case.

However, at the court below, the defendant recognized the crime of this case late, and the defendant again did not commit sexual assault.

Rape, which is the basic crime of the instant crime, was attempted.

At the court below, the defendant paid a considerable amount of agreement with the victim and agreed with the victim, and the victim submitted a written agreement to the effect that the court does not want to punish the defendant more.

In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the various circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, family relationship, character and conduct, environment, etc. recorded in the record, the sentence of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be too unjustifiable.

The prosecutor's argument is with merit.