2. The Defendant committed the instant crime in which the victim’s her son, who was an employee who had replaced the cell phone charging device in the her mother room where the Defendant was living together, committed an indecent act against the victim of unhulled rice by taking his her own sexual organ out on the part. In light of the method of the indecent act as above, the circumstances leading to the crime, and the details leading to the crime, etc., the fact that the crime is not good is unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime; and (c) the Defendant’s age, family environment, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime; and (d) the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.