2. The instant crime: (a) the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, had sexual intercourse with a victim who was in an impossible condition to resist; (b) the nature of the crime is not good; (c) the victim appears to have suffered considerable mental pain and sexual humiliation due to the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant did not agree with the victim; and (c) made efforts to recover from damage faithfully.

There is no circumstance to see that there is no circumstance, and the victim is trying to punish the defendant, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, there is room for considering the motive that the defendant committed a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol as a relationship with the victim at the time of the crime in this case, the family members of the defendant wanted to be her wife, and the social relationship seems to be clear, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

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 Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive or circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is not difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfasible and thus exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion 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 grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.