준강제추행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the original judgment (two years of imprisonment for a term of eight months suspended, and forty hours of an order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture) is too unfluent;
2. All circumstances asserted by the Prosecutor as an unfavorable factor in sentencing at the trial were revealed during the hearing of the lower court, and no particular change of circumstances is found in relation to the matters subject to sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.
Furthermore, in full view of the sentencing grounds cited by the court below and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in sentencing, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion is not acceptable.
3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[However, the decision on whether to issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) and Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act should be made. The court below judged that there are special circumstances for the defendant not to issue an employment restriction order under the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act for the same reason as the court below stated in the exemption of the employment restriction order for children and juveniles-related institutions. Thus, the defendant