The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the defendant in light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment imposed by the court below (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 1 year, 6 months and 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

Examining the various sentencing conditions of this case, the crime of this case is committed against the defendant, inasmuch as the defendant tried to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim, who is a workplace fee, in his own car, by drinking, but the victim was broken away from the lock. In light of the background and place of the crime, the method of the crime, and the relationship between the defendant and the victim, etc., the crime is not good, and the crime is very serious, and the victim seems to have been committed with the above crime, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental shock and sexual humiliation along with the sense of good faith, and sexual humiliation.

Meanwhile, the circumstances are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant was aware of and against the crime of this case, the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment, the rape crime is committed in the attempted crime, and the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim during the trial.

In full view of the various factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, family relation, motive, means and method of committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, which are unfavorable or favorable to the Defendant, the lower court’s sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months is too unfasible as the prosecutor’s assertion that it is unfair and unfair, rather than the Defendant’s assertion.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing unfair sentencing is with merit, and the prosecutor's ground of appeal is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is correct.