2. The judgment follows: (a) the Defendant had the record of being sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime even before the instant case; (b) the degree of indecent act against the victim is heavy; (c) the Defendant recognized the instant crime against the Defendant; (d) the Defendant has no record of being punished beyond the fine; and (e) the Defendant has no record of being punished beyond the fine; (d) the Defendant was able to have caused the instant crime by misunderstanding it to a signal given to the victim’s body at the instant place; (e) there was no circumstance or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the judgment of the court below was rendered; and (e) other various sentencing factors that were shown in the process of trial such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) circumstances after the crime, etc., the 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.