2. Determination

A. The crime of this case in part of the defendant's case is one of the most likely crimes that the defendant committed soup at the soup room of a female victim and committed an indecent act by drinking together with the clothes of the female victim.

The Defendant committed the instant crime again despite having been sentenced one time to suspend the execution and two times a fine for the same kind of crime.

The defendant was unable to receive suspicion from the victim.

However, the Defendant, recognizing the instant crime, is against the Defendant.

The defendant committed the crime of this case by contingency, and the degree of tangible force exercised by the defendant is not heavy.

The defendant has no record of serving a prison labor.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and all other sentencing conditions as shown in the argument in this case, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too una

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

B. If the part of the case for which the request to attach an attachment order is filed by the prosecutor who filed an appeal against the prosecuted case, it is deemed that the prosecutor filed an appeal against the case for which the request to attach an attachment order is filed pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation

However, the prosecutor did not submit any grounds for appeal regarding the request for attachment order, and the judgment of the court below can not be examined and reversed ex officio.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.