The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service, and 40 hours of lectures to treat sexual assault) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure and notification orders, in the absence of special circumstances that may not disclose or notify the Defendant’s personal information.

2. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is a favorable circumstance where the Defendant attempted to get out of the clothes of the victim and attempted to commit an attempted crime, and the Defendant has no record of being punished for a sex offense.

However, the crime of this case is committed in relation to the defendant's attempted rape, and the nature of the crime is very poor, and the victim seems to have suffered a considerable mental impulse due to the crime of this case, and the husband of the victim also seems to have suffered a considerable mental impulse due to the crime of this case, as well as the crime of this case in relation to the defendant, who is a workplace partner, brought considerable inconvenience to the business of the company due to the crime of this case, and even though the defendant was aware of the victim's identity, he did not seem to have made an endeavor to recover damage, such as seeking a letter from the victim or seeking an agreement with the victim, and the victim is trying to punish the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the unfair argument of exemption from disclosure notification order.