2. The lower court rendered the above sentence by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s lawful execution of official duties, such as the fact that the Defendant deposited a certain amount on behalf of the victim, the Defendant’s age is yet, the Defendant reflects the crime late, and the fact that the Defendant did not have any power to commit the crime.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions, other than the circumstances considered by the lower court, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, health, and background leading to the commission of the offense, means and result, scale of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, although it appears that the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unfasible as the prosecutor asserts.

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.