2. The judgment of the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime, but it has not been much time, and even thereafter, committed the instant crime repeatedly. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant using mobile phones for the purpose of meeting his own sexual desire, thereby allowing the victims to feel a sense of sexual humiliation, and its nature and criminal circumstances are inferior, and the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime as a disabled person of Grade III with intellectual disability and seriously reflects his/her mistake; (b) the Defendant again committed such a crime while participating in job-seeking activities; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the commission of the crime; and (d) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing specified in the instant case, it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation above is groundless.

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