The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The defendant is the subject of sexual assault treatment for 40 hours.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment, five years of suspended execution, and forty hours of sexual assault treatment course) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are that the defendant is a young person who is still 20 years of age and is still a first offender, that the defendant recognizes the crime of this case and is against himself, and that the defendant deposits 10 million won for the victim.

On the other hand, the fact that the victim was under 17 years of age at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant had been raped at the time of the first rape, and the defendant had already received a mental or physical address due to the first rape, and further, the victim knew that the victim was unable to resist by taking advantage of the water surface guidance system (However, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was aware that the victim was taking advantage of the water surface guidance system at the time of suicide), and again has sexual intercourse with the victim again, the crime is extremely poor; the victim shows serious apprehensions and depressions to the extent that he should receive mental treatment due to the crime of this case; the victim appears to have suffered from disorder in daily life; and the victim was punished against the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as the sentencing guidelines, sentencing cases, the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and background leading to each of the crimes in this case, the means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's sentence is deemed to be unfair because of the circumstances prescribed in the precedents regarding the appellate court's sentencing (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is justified.

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.