The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the sentence imposed by the court below (4 years of suspended sentence for three years of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment course) is too uneasible.

2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by intrusion upon the victim’s house, which the Defendant had been aware of at the night, and attempted to rape by threatening the victim’s house, which is a dangerous object under the item of the victim’s body, which was the victim’s scambling, and the victim scaming, and suffered injury to the victim. In light of the background and content of the crime, the method of the crime, the danger and interview with the victim, and the relationship with the victim, etc., the crime of this case is very poor and heavy, and the victim appears to have suffered considerable physical and mental pain due to the instant crime, etc.

However, in the meantime, the Defendant appears to be at the time of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant seems to have committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent state of mental disorder by drinking, which seems to have led to the instant crime in a state of mental disorder, which has been committed in a state of mental disorder, and the degree of injury suffered by the victim was not much severe, and there is no record of sexual assault crime in the Defendant, in particular, the victim and her husband wanted to repeat the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant, and in addition, comprehensively considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and considering these two sentencing factors, the lower court appears to have sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of three years within the scope of imprisonment (three to nine years) set forth in the sentencing guidelines, and the lower court’s sentence in the trial at the same time appears to have been sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years.