A. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing (three years of suspension of execution in two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unhutiled and unfair.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for attachment order even though the defendant's improper assertion that the attachment order is dismissed is likely to recommit a sexual crime.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not deemed to be an indecent act by the defendant by force against a minor victim, but it is not good that the defendant led to the confession and misjudgment of the crime of this case; the defendant has no same criminal records; the mother of the victim has cancelled the complaint against the defendant; the defendant's age, character and conduct and environment; the motive, means and consequence of the crime; and all the circumstances indicated in the arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is deemed that the sentence of the court below is too unjustifiable, and thus, the prosecutor's allegation in this part is without merit.

B. 1) The lower court’s determination on the ground that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence, and thus dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case pursuant to Article 9(4)4 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. 2) As seen earlier, the lower court’s determination on the dismissal of the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case under the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, which requires the dismissal of the request for the attachment order of this case, is justifiable, as long as the sentence of a suspended sentence is deemed appropriate.

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