2. The instant crime requires strict punishment against the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim under 13 years of age; (b) the nature of the instant crime is not good in light of the applicable law and its content; and (c) the victim’s age and age as a result of the instant crime showed considerable mental suffering and pain.

However, the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case, led to the misunderstanding of his own mistake, divided and reflected against the defendant, there is no criminal history against the defendant, the defendant appears to have been able to understand the right and wrong under the 2th brain operation, and has been endeavoring to keep the defendant from reconcing with the victim by moving his residence recently, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below, and the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, gender and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, conditions for sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Thus, the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

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