2. The defendant needs to strictly punish the defendant when considering the fact that the defendant tried to conceal the crime in advance by telephone if he/she re-enters the victim to the husband of the victim, and that the defendant did not agree with the victim, etc.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was aware of the instant crime and divided; (b) there was no record of criminal punishment for the same type of crime; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) all the sentencing circumstances indicated in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable

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 by the court below (Article 16(2) and (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against the Order to Attend 1. The phrase “Article 16(2) and (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against the Order to Attend 1.” Since it is obvious that the prosecutor’s wrong term of office under Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against the Order to Attend 2.