2. The Defendants, on the ground that the victim G and Sinban had the victim's name of a ship friendly to the Defendants, she was fluored by towing the victim's personal body, leading the victim to the alleyway, and fluorging the victim into approximately 4 weeks of sexual intercourse, etc., which requires approximately 50,000 won of the market price of the victim's damage caused damage to the victim's cell phone. The Defendant B was damaged by gathering the cell phone of KRW 500,00 of the market price of the victim's damage. In light of the background leading up to the crime, the type of crime, and the degree of injury, etc., the liability for the crime is not easy.

Defendants were unable to agree with the victim until the court of first instance.

On the other hand, the defendants recognized the crime of this case and violated it.

Defendants do not have any criminal record of having been punished for the same kind of crime except for those who have been punished once by a fine for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury).

The Defendants deposited 3 million won for the victim in the court below, and deposited 2 million won in the court below additionally, and Defendant A paid 729,860 won for the claim of the victim's medical expenses to the National Health Insurance Corporation.

They want the Defendants’ wife. They want the Defendants’ wife.

In full view of all the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unfasible.

Therefore, we cannot accept the prosecutor's unfair argument of sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.