2. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime again even during the period of repeated crime, and the Defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime; (b) while recognizing the instant crime, the Defendant reflects the fact that the Defendant does not want the punishment by mutual consent with the victim; (c) the motive and background leading up to the instant crime; (d) the means and method of the crime; (e) the Defendant’s age before and after the instant crime; (e) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, occupation, family relationship; and (e) other conditions attached to the sentencing specified in the records and pleadings, such as records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too unfeasible.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the “1. C’s statement of the police’s statement” in Article 2 of the judgment below No. 5 of the judgment below is obvious that the police’s statement of 1. C is erroneous, and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.