2. The court below's decision on unfair sentencing cannot be accepted, since the court below's decision on the defendant's punishment is unfair since it is hard to accept the defendant's appeal on the ground of the following reasons: (a) the defendant committed a crime against the victim living in the same village; (b) the victim's age appears to have suffered a significant mental and psychological shock; (c) the victim's parent's agreement was submitted; (d) the victim's parent's agreement was not paid compensation for damage to the victim; (e) the victim's opinion appears to be a severe punishment against the defendant; (e) the defendant's depth is against the defendant; (g) the defendant's planned act does not seem to have committed the crime of this case; (d) the defendant did not have any history of punishment for sex crime; (e) the victim did not have any history of mental stability; and (e) the relationship between the defendant and his family members seems to have been recovered to a considerable extent, based on the records and arguments of this case and the sentencing guidelines set forth in Article 51 of the Criminal Act and the recommendations.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.