2. The instant crime was committed against a victim in a de facto marital relationship by the Defendant, and the crime was committed with similar rape, special intimidation, or bodily injury, and the nature of the crime is not weak.

The Defendant was detained on a separate basis and later was released for about one month, and the possibility of criticism is also high.

Although the victim appears to have suffered considerable mental impulse due to the crime of this case, the defendant was unable to receive the victim's letter until the trial of the case.

However, when the defendant was in the trial, the defendant seems to be able to make a confession of the crime of this case and to reflect it.

Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, family relations, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, even considering the circumstances cited by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence sentenced to two years and six months for the Defendant cannot be deemed to be unfair as it is too unreasonable.

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