2. The instant crime requires strict punishment against the Defendant, taking into account the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against a minor under the age of 13 and the nature of the offense is not good.

However, given that the Defendant’s mistake is divided, there is no record that the Defendant was punished for a sexual crime, the degree of the indecent act in this case’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair. Thus, the prosecutor’s above 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 grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below is corrected or deleted in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Juveniles, Article 16 (2) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, and Article 21 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, and Article 47 (1) and Article 49 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Juveniles from Sexual Crimes on the ground that Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure is a clerical error.