The court of the first instance of the applicant for compensation shall dismiss the application for compensation.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (limited to 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, probation, community service order 120 hours, 40 hours of attendance order for sexual assault treatment, confiscation) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the judgment of the first instance court

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times as a larceny, the Defendant again committed the instant crime.

Until now, victims have not recovered from damage.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the Defendant.

Among the instant crimes, the instant crime committed in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras, etc.) was committed, and the damage amount to the larceny crime was relatively minor.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and consequences, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the Defendant goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. An applicant for judgment on an application for a compensation order has filed an application for a compensation order of one million won again in the trial and again against the accused, but the amount of damage and the amount of application are inconsistent. Thus, it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in criminal proceedings because the scope of the Defendant’s liability to compensate against the applicant is unclear.

3. The prosecutor’s appeal for conclusion is without merit and is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.