2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the background of the instant crime and the form of conduct, etc., the crime liability is not easy, and the sexual humiliation and mental shock of the victim was deemed to have been considerable, and the fact that the victim was unlikely to suffer from the damage is recognized.

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the recognition of the crime, the violation of the law, the effort to agree with the victim, the defendant has no record of the same crime, and there is no record of criminal punishment after 190.

The lower court did not change the terms and conditions of sentencing on the grounds that the aforementioned circumstances were equally considered and the new sentencing data was not submitted in the first instance.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, various circumstances, including the records of this case and the circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as the conditions for sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion due to excessive flicking.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.