The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unhued.

2. The Defendant committed the instant crime by compulsiond the victim four times in a way that the victim sel or mar, etc. were seld or seld on the victim under the age of 13.

The lower court: (a) took account of the following favorable circumstances: (b) the method of crime is inadequate; (c) the victim was suffering from considerable suspicion, displeasure, or sexual humiliation; and (d) the victim’s family members appear to suffer much pain; (c) however, the lower court took into account the following favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant was fully admitted to the crime; (d) the victim expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant; (e) the victim expressed his/her intent not to have any criminal punishment; and (e) the Defendant did not have any particular criminal punishment in addition to the two times of fine; and (e) determined

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been appropriately determined by fully taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial.

In addition to the above circumstances as decided by the court below, considering all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relation, criminal record, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unfeasible and it does not seem to be unfair beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the prosecutor’s appeal for conclusion is groundless.