The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendants (each of the two years and six months of suspended execution, each of 80 hours of sexual assault therapy and community service order for 120 hours) are too uneasy and unreasonable.

Judgment

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment in the appellate court, and the sentencing of the original court is not beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As to the instant case, there is no significant change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court in the first instance trial.

The crime of this case committed by the Defendants, along with the victim who was 17 years old or older, committed sexual intercourse with the victim by force after drinking alcohol in the pentathy and diving at the ward. In light of the degree of the possibility of criticism and the degree of sexual humiliation and mental suffering suffered by the victim, etc., the Defendants need to be punished strictly.

However, there is no history of punishment against the Defendants for the same crime, and there is no history of punishment beyond a minor fine or juvenile protective disposition. The Defendants are not prepared or imitated in advance, but appears to have committed a crime somewhat contingent and contingently. The victims paid a considerable amount of money to the victims, and the victims do not want the punishment against the Defendants, and the Defendants are likely to have repeated as healthy citizens by improving their personality and conduct in a way other than acceptance by correctional facilities. In full view of various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, and environment, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.