2. The crime of this case is an indecent act committed by the defendant against the victim of Grade III who is merely ten years of age, using the victim of intellectual disability who is merely ten years of age to resist due to mental disability on two occasions, and the nature of the crime is not minor.

A victim, who did not properly form sexual identity and values, seems to have suffered a lot of shocks due to the above crime.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim or his guardian.

This situation is the situation in which the responsibility of the defendant is excessive.

However, the defendant has the following favorable circumstances.

The defendant is against the defendant's wrong and the degree of tangible power exercised in the course of the crime is relatively minor.

The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under the circumstance that he was the primary offender and was somewhat poor at the time of committing the crime.

In full view of all circumstances, including these circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to be within the appropriate range of sentence corresponding to the Defendant’s liability, and it is not determined that the sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion cannot be accepted.

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