2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant with buckbucks and mucks of the victim, who is the police assigned for special guard working in a bank, and committed indecent acts by the Defendant. In light of the circumstances and details of the crime, how the crime was committed, how the crime was committed, and how the crime was committed, it seems that the victim’s sexual humiliation would be reasonable, and that the Defendant had the record of having been punished for the same kind of crime, etc.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) the Defendant was punished once by a fine due to the same type of crime; (c) there was no record of the suspension of execution or heavier punishment; (d) the degree of indecent act is not serious; and (e) the Defendant’s health status is not good; and (e) other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, family environment, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s sentence against the

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