2. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, including the motive, means and consequence, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age of the Defendant, sexual conduct, intelligence, environment, etc., and various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments and records, including the following: (a) under the favorable circumstances in which the Defendant committed an attempted crime, and the degree of injury was not severe; (b) the Defendant had been punished for the commission of the crime of injury, violence, etc.; and (c) the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the previous injury, violence, etc.; and (d) the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victims; and (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victims.

The reason for the improper sentencing (agreement with the victim during the period of repeated crime, poorness of the crime, and the victim) alleged by the prosecutor appears to be the reason for determining the sentence against the defendant, which has already been sufficiently taken into account in determining the sentence against the defendant, and any other change in the above sentencing conditions.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.