2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter the Defendant) committed again the instant crime even though they had the same criminal record, and that the instant crime was committed by force by the Defendant, and that it is not good for the Defendant to commit the instant crime, strict punishment against the Defendant is required.

However, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided, the defendant is sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, the surveillance of protection, the community service order and the order to attend lectures together, the degree of indecent act in this case, the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments in this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior and environment, the motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor's above assertion is too unjustifiable,

B. The part of the case pertaining to the attachment order is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the case pertaining to the attachment order under Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Attachment of Electronic Devices (hereinafter “Electronic Devices Attachment Act”). However, as long as the prosecutor filed an appeal regarding the case pertaining to the attachment order, the prosecutor did not submit a legitimate ground for appeal regarding the case pertaining to the attachment order, and the petition of appeal submitted by the prosecutor does not contain any indication of the grounds for appeal regarding this part and the record is not examined.

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 Electronic Devices Installation Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.