2. The crime of this case, however, is an indecent act committed by the Defendant against the victim who was in a state of impossibility to resist because the Defendant was diving, and it appears that the victim would not have any sexual humiliation and mental impulse caused thereby, and the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim or take measures to recover from damage up to now, etc., the Defendant’s responsibility cannot be deemed to be light for the Defendant’s liability.

However, if the court below examines the defendant's punishment based on the ruling of the court based on the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the defendant's criminal act and committed mistake in depth, and the defendant was sentenced to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in 2006 and the violation of the Act on the Establishment of Sea Reserve Forces in 1987, and the fact that there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime or the suspension of execution or heavier punishment except for the punishment sentenced to the violation of the Act on the Establishment of Air Reserve Forces, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.