The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the evidence of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged (an attempted quasi-rape) despite the fact that the Defendant could have recognized the intention of quasi-rape

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant attempted to commit a sexual intercourse with the victim with the intention to quasi

In light of the circumstances indicated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and there is no error in matters of law as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor, in so determining, in so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the Defendant, while making a statement to the effect that the Defendant attempted to take part in the victim’s body while making a statement to the effect that the Defendant “I have come to come to the victim’s body,” which corresponds to what extent to what extent the Defendant’s change in the body of the Defendant, the Defendant’s behavior that the victim did not take place while driving the mind, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant and the victim were living together with the victim, while recognizing the actual condition of the victim’s body, it was difficult to conclude that the Defendant attempted to take part in the sexual relationship by using it.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The crime of this case regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be said to be the case where the Defendant refused the request by the victim who was dead and detained the victim so that the victim may not remain at the motel for a few hours, and the liability for the crime cannot be deemed to be mitigated.

However, it is not by the defendant's forced power that the defendant and the victim initially moved into the telecom, but by the victim.