2. The Defendant’s crime of this case, based on the following facts: (a) discovered the password of the victim’s house entrance by using the blamera, took the victim’s body image by installing a brumeras in the victim’s residence; (b) in light of the method of crime, the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the method of crime; and (c) the Defendant intrudes into the victim’s residence every day during which the period exceeds one month; and (d) it seems that the victim’s mental shock caused by the crime of this case would be reasonable; and (e) the Defendant was punished on two occasions due to the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

On the other hand, it seems that the risk of recidivism is not high because the defendant recognizes all of his criminal acts, the victim and the victim did not want the punishment for the defendant, and the family members of the defendant expressed their intent to protect the defendant's wife while trying to do so. The fact that the defendant has no record of being punished more than a suspended sentence is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age of the Defendant, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s allegation above is without merit.

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