The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Improper sentencing on the gist of reasons for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Improper sentencing of the relevant legal doctrine refers to cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines.

In a case where it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, the appellate court should reverse the judgment below’s unreasonable determination of the sentence (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The lower court’s sentence return to the instant case is too uneasible and unreasonable in light of the content of the specific case.

1) Under favorable circumstances, the lower court takes into account the following factors: ① the part concerning rape among the instant crimes: (a) the Defendant was guilty of attempted rape; (b) the Defendant did not have the record of criminal punishment for sex crimes; and (c) the victim stated to the effect that the Defendant was not punished for the Defendant; (b) the crime of rape was committed by taking advantage of the circumstances dependent on the Defendant in relation to share transactions; (c) the Defendant was committed with attempted rape; (d) however, the victim was deemed to have caused considerable mental shock and sexual humiliation; and (e) the Defendant did not seem to have seriously reflected, taking into account all the factors of sentencing.