The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (3 million won in penalty) declared by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (narcotics) as well as the record that he/she has been sentenced to a fine and a penalty for negligence over a three hundreds of times, among them, and that he/she committed the instant crime.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the crime; (b) the Defendant’s mistake was divided into one another; (c) the victim was smoothly agreed with the victim; (d) the Defendant’s wife was desired; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment; and (e) the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions specified in the argument in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is too unf

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 70 of the Criminal Act). However, since it is apparent that the application of the law in the judgment of the court below was omitted by this mistake after the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” after the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” of the detention in the workhouse, it is corrected to add it ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1)