2. Circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant are that the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the suspension period of the execution of the same crime, that the victim requests the investigative agency to take measures to protect himself/herself, and is seeking strong punishment.

On the other hand, the following points are favorable to the defendant.

In order to return money to the victim, the Defendant tried to recover the victim again, but the victim did not come to commit the instant crime. The method and content of notifying harm and injury of the Defendant are minor compared to the same kind of crime in the past.

The Defendant was no longer able to demand a more annual relationship.

I think that it will not access the victim.

The results are as follows.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair to the extent that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is excessively unhued and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.