2. In a case where 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that there was a history of having been punished several times by the same force, the Defendant continuously committed the instant crime even though the investigation and trial are in progress, and in light of the content of the relevant crime, the Defendant used violence by means of force, such as a large amount of time, etc., and thus, the strong risk of recidivism and the fact that the law peeps.

However, it is favorable for the victims to recognize and reflect crimes, and the victims do not want the punishment against the defendant, and there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine.

The court below determined a punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the court below because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the court below.

In addition, the lower court’s sentencing is determined to be appropriate, and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by excessively funching the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as expressed in the lower court’s sentencing review process.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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.