2. The crime of this case is found to be an unfavorable sentencing factor, such as the following: (a) the Defendant intruded the pent of the body of the victims at night, stolen things, and raped the victim F, who was unable to resist due to diving; and (b) the method of the crime is dangerous and bad; and (c) the victim appears to have suffered a large mental shock.

On the other hand, the defendant shows an attitude to recognize both the crime of this case and reflect in depth, and the crime of this case appears to have committed an act of drinking alcohol and contingently in the course of college students for about three years, and currently, it is recognized that the defendant is employed and lives faithfully in large enterprises, the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant, there is no record of criminal punishment except for both recommendations due to unauthorized licenses and drunk driving, and there is clear social relation.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and other circumstances revealed in the pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and it is deemed unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.