2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although there are unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, considering the following: (a) the nature of the instant crime in light of the following: (b) the Defendant recognized the instant facts charged; (c) the Defendant was the first offender without a criminal record; (d) the degree of the instant indecent act was not excessive; and (e) the Defendant was the first offender without a criminal record; (c) the Defendant agreed with the victims; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., and all the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant records and arguments, the prosecutor’s assertion that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, is not justified.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.