2. The crime of this case, which committed an indecent act by the Defendant, who was under the command and supervision of the head of office, was committed by committing an indecent act by causing the victim, who is an employee under the command and supervision of the head of office. In light of the circumstances leading to the crime, details, and the method of the crime, etc., the nature of the crime is not good, thereby making the victim feel a serious sexual humiliation, and the juvenile protective disposition was committed by the same kind of crime around 193.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) the degree of indecent act is relatively excessive; (c) the Defendant was subject to a fine once after being subject to juvenile protective disposition; (d) the Defendant’s age, family environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the instant crime; and (e) other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, family environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the juvenile protective disposition, the Defendant’s sentence against the Defendant

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.