2. It is recognized that the nature of each of the crimes of this case is bad in light of the form and method of each of the crimes of this case.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant has led to the confession of all crimes and divided his mistake, the fact that there was no particular criminal history other than the sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 as a result of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act in around 1999, the Defendant appears to have committed each of the crimes of this case in contingent terms, the fact that he agreed with the victim of property damage, the fact that he has compensated for the damaged patrol car repair cost, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and is not deemed unfair

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(2)2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, among the judgment of the court below, Article 137(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds that the pertinent legal provision on the facts of the crime in violation of the law is a clerical error under Article 136(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is obvious that the pertinent legal provision on the facts of the crime in violation of the law is a clerical error under Article 136(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.