The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court exempted the Defendant from punishment on the ground that the instant crime constituted a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that the first head of the crime in question was in violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims, etc. (Special Rape)

However, considering the fact that the defendant can have the same power, and the crime of this case is very poor in the number and quality of the crime due to the same re-offending during the period of repeated crime and the responsibility for the crime is serious, the exemption of the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is determined based on the following facts: (a) although the defendant tried to commit a deadly weapon and rape the victim; (b) the defendant committed an attempted crime at the strong resistance of the victim; (c) the victim was inflicted an injury on the victim in the process; (d) the details of the crime were serious and bad; (e) the victim did not completely recover from damage up to the trial; (c) the defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment due to a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims, etc.; and (d) was released from the court and again committed the crime of this case more than three months after he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment; and (e) the applicable law of the crime of this case was similar to that of the sex offense previously punished, the defendant shall be held strictly liable

However, the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the first head of the crime in which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the punishment for the crime of this case may be mitigated or exempted, taking into account equity in cases where the crime of this case and the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive are concurrently adjudicated.

The lower court: (a) the following favorable circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, namely, the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime; and (b) the instant crime was committed before approximately 13 years, and rape was committed.