The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, for the purpose of sexual intercourse, 14 years old by deceiving himself as 19 years old, and was committed by a female juvenile with a low intellectual level, to have sexual intercourse with his own house, and to have sexual intercourse with the victim. The crime was heavier than that of the Defendant.

The victim seems to have been given a great sense of sexual humiliation, and his family members seems to have suffered a considerable mental impulse.

Nevertheless, the defendant has not made any effort to recover damage.

On the other hand, the Defendant generally expresses that the crime of attracting sexual intercourse is not established (the lower court’s assertion that the crime of inducing sexual intercourse is not established, but the Defendant’s act is not denied due to the legal argument that the victimized person voluntarily found and caused sexual intercourse with the victim). The Defendant was a first offender who had no record of the crime until he/she graduated from high school and has been living in his/her workplace with his/her own name until he/she became adult after being discovered as a baby at the time of her early birth, and has been living in good faith, such as graduating from high school, and has

Although the victim's intellectual level is low, the defendant is somewhat low in intelligence compared to the general public, and the defendant lacks the ability to judge the judgment accordingly seems to have caused the crime of this case.

In full view of all the circumstances, including these circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to be within the appropriate range of sentence corresponding to its liability, and it is not determined that the sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion.