2. The Defendant, as a driver of a driving vehicle with a driving school, committed an indecent act by force against a juvenile on board a vehicle to return home at night despite his duty to safely return to his/her own vehicle, and the nature of the offense is not somewhat weak. At the time, the victim seems to have considerable fear and displeasure, and the Defendant still did not have any tolerance from the victim.

However, the defendant, when he was tried to commit the crime of this case, appears to have an attitude to repent in his own name when he led to the crime of this case. There are more favorable factors for sentencing, such as the degree of tangible power exercised in the crime of this case, and the degree of indecent act is not severe, and the degree of indecent act is not serious, and there is no record of punishment before the crime was committed.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and other circumstances revealed in the pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and it is deemed unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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