The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In the judgment of the court below, "sexual assault treatment program" is "sexual assault."

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant (the imprisonment of three years, the probation period of four years, the observation of protection, the community service order of 160 hours, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture of 80 hours) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

It is unfair for the court below to exempt the defendant from the disclosure disclosure notification order.

Judgment

The crime of this case as to the wrongful argument of sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, where the defendant forced the victim with mental disability into the male toilet screen and prevented him from resisting against the victim's face by inserting the victim's sexual organ into the mouth of the victim, and the crime of this case is very heavy, and the victim seems to have suffered a big mental shock and pain along with the considerable sexual humiliation.

On the other hand, the defendant also is a disabled person of class 2 with intellectual disability, there is no criminal record against the defendant, the defendant recognizes the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and the damaged person is not wanting to be punished by the defendant by agreement with the victim is favorable to the defendant.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Therefore, in full view of the above circumstances and the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and result of the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions set forth in the argument of this case, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, and the scope of the recommended sentence and the criteria for the suspension of execution according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, it is not determined that the court below's sentence against the defendant is unfair because the sentence imposed by the defendant is uneasible.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is justified.