2. The prosecutor's argument that the criminal liability of the defendant who repeatedly committed against the victim, who is a subordinate employee in the workplace, is hot, is correct.

However, in full view of the sentencing conditions prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the fact that the defendant made a confession of all of the crimes of this case at the trial time, received a written request from the victim, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the same kind of punishment or fine in the past, the determination of the punishment by the court below can be accepted, and it is not unreasonable for the prosecutor to assert it.

(On the other hand, the court below adopted the recorded file CD as evidence by the prosecutor, but did not examine the evidence under Article 292-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 134-8(3) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, but it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment since it can be found guilty of the facts charged even as stated

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.