The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant suffered approximately two weeks of a scarke wall to the victim in the course of rape on June 14, 2015 can be sufficiently recognized.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (two years and six months of the suspension of execution, etc. in the imprisonment of two years and six months) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, the court below's evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the victim was raped on June 14, 2015, and then at the Seaba Center, "the defendant knew that there was an error on the part of the victim at the time of raped the victim, and it was inconvenient that there was an error on the part of the victim." However, at the time of the court below, the victim stated that "the victim made a statement in exaggeration of the degree of injury in the remaining Seaba Center" to the effect that "the victim did not know that there was a stroke of the victim's body, and that there was no need for the victim to take a treatment other than the victim's body in the process of treating the victim and the victim's body," and that it appears that the victim's statement and its appearance were ordinarily different from the above statement.