A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to have exempted the Defendant from disclosure disclosure notification order.

2. Determination:

A. The instant crime of determining the illegality of sentencing is an indecent act committed by the juvenile, such as bucking or sucking off the victim’s bucks, which is the juvenile, on several occasions, and the nature of the crime and statutory punishment are not somewhat weak. However, there are unfavorable circumstances such as the victim’s wishing to punish. However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the crime; (b) the Defendant is the primary offender; (c) the Defendant’s exercise of force against the victim was occurred in the process of excessively expressing friendship; (d) the degree of indecent act is relatively minor; (b) the victim deposited KRW 2 million for the victim; and (c) community residents want to have a preference against the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment of imprisonment for one year and suspended execution for a period of two years is unreasonable, even if all the various circumstances cited by the prosecutor in the grounds for appeal are considered.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

B. In full view of the Defendant’s age, occupation, type of crime of this case, motive, process of crime, severity of crime, Defendant’s history, possibility of recidivism, the degree and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the disclosure notification order, the effectiveness and effect of preventing sexual crimes that may be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims, the lower court’s measure that exempted the disclosure notification order is also appropriate.

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

However, as the proviso of Article 42 among the “aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes” in the lower judgment’s application of statutes is apparent to have been written by mistake, Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is applicable.