2. In full view of the various circumstances, including the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the court below after the judgment of the court below, the sentencing of the court below is not unfair.

In addition, the risk of recidivism is significantly low, such as the defendant's age, occupation and environment, social relation, details and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, the outline, and the fact that there is no criminal punishment for sex crimes.

In addition, taking into account other circumstances such as the degree and expected side effects of the defendant's suffering by an employment restriction order, the prevention effect of sexual crimes that can be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims of children and juveniles from sexual crimes, etc., there are special circumstances where the defendant shall not be issued an employment restriction order. Thus, the defendant shall not be issued an employment restriction order pursuant to the proviso to Article 56 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.