2. The instant crime is an indecent act by force by the Defendant, which committed the instant crime by force on the part of a female with smartphone hosting, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime in light of the content and method of the crime.

The victims of eight years of age, whose sexual identity and values have not been properly formed, seem to have received a lot of mental impulses due to the crime committed by the defendant.

Moreover, even though the Defendant had had had been sentenced to a fine due to quasi-indecent act by compulsion in the past, the Defendant committed the same kind of crime.

On the other hand, the defendant did not have any record of punishment heavier than suspended sentence, and seems to have committed the crime of this case by chance while drinking alcohol.

On the basis of this attitude, the defendant reflects his mistake in depth, and based on the parent of the victim, he did not want to punish the defendant, and the mother of the victim wants to take the action against the next defendant again in this court.

In full view of all the circumstances, including these circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion cannot be accepted.

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