2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing is ex post facto, etc. of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 47 (1) and Article 49 (1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Articles 47 (1) and 49 (1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Articles 49 (1) (proviso), 50 (1) (proviso), and 56 (1) (proviso) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Crimes).