The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following conditions, considering the part of the Defendant case, the sentence of the lower court’s sentence (ten years of imprisonment, four years of suspended sentence, four years of probation, four years of community service order, 160 hours of community service order, 80 hours of attendance order of sexual assault treatment lectures) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below that dismissed the request of the respondent for an attachment order even if the victim's request for the attachment order recognizes the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes is unfair.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the fact that the crime of this case in the part of the defendant's case was committed by indecent act by blood of the defendant, and the nature of the crime is not good, and that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years in Seoul District Court in 2001, with prison labor for rape, bodily injury, etc., 4 years in suspended execution, and with Daejeon High Court in 2004 due to the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (Juvenile Rape, etc.), the defendant's liability for the crime is somewhat minor.

or may not be deemed to have a low need for punishment.

However, the crime of this case differs from the defendant's sexual crime history and appears to be a somewhat contingent crime, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant seems to have recognized and reflected his own crime when it comes to the trial, and there is also a favorable condition for the defendant, such as the support of the defendant's wife and his wife and the support of the defendant's wife and the support of the defendant's wife. In addition, the court below's examination of the defendant's punishment based on the judgment of the court below based on the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the situation where six of the seven jurys present their opinion on the sentence of suspended execution at the court below where the participatory trial was conducted, as well as the situation where six of the seven jurys present their opinion on the sentence of suspended execution. Thus, it is unreasonable that the court below's sentence imposed