The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of attendance order for sexual assault treatment lectures) is too uneasible.

2. The Defendant appears to have committed a crime against himself, and the Defendant’s crime of this case constitutes a crime of attempted rape, etc. for which judgment became final and conclusive, and constitutes a crime of latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, should consider equity with the case to be judged.

On the other hand, the Defendant’s crime of this case is committed against female students who were returned to a dormitory at the latest time by using information such as the location of the dormitory in the university of this case, which was identified through the ordinary delivery service, and the nature of the crime was very poor in light of the method of the crime. The Defendant shown that female students were either female students or self-defense at late night. Considering the content of the crime, it appears that the risk of the crime is more likely than the general public performance and obscenity, and female students who observed the crime of this case seems to have suffered severe mental shock, and considering the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of this case while the Defendant was tried to commit the crime of this case during the trial for attempted rape, it is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances leading to the instant crime, including the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age of the Defendant, character and conduct, family relation, environment, occupation, etc., the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair. Thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is with merit

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is made in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.