2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

The defendant repeats his fault in depth.

As we agree to the involvement of specialized child protection agencies and actively participate in psychological treatment, the risk of recidivism seems to be low.

The family members of the defendant also want to take the defendant's measures against the defendant, and have more interest in the defendant and the victim.

The defendant has been punished only once by a fine so far.

The judgment below

No special circumstance can be found to change the sentence of the court below after a sentence was rendered.

In addition, even if the sentencing of the lower court is too unhued and it is deemed that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering all the sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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