All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant (1) was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

(2) In full view of the fact that the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is divided into one’s own mistakes, the sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime by the prosecutor and the attitude of the Defendant following the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record, it is not deemed that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, but the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions in light of the circumstances of the crime, the method and content of the crime, the behavior and attitude of the defendant before and after the crime, etc.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, method of the crime, result of the crime, etc., as well as the recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the Criminal Procedure Committee’s sentencing guidelines, including the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family relationship, method of the crime, and method of the crime, etc., as well as the fact that the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment, etc., and the Defendant committed an indecent act and rape by compulsion of sheshel’s care to address his own sexual desire, and thus, the Defendant attempted to commit the crime in this case. It is not recognized that the lower court’s excessive punishment is unreasonable or unreasonable, by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family relationship, the Defendant’s motive and consequence of the crime in this case; and (b) the recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the Criminal Procedure Committee’s sentencing guidelines.

Therefore, both the defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing are justified.