The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspension of execution in one year and six months of imprisonment) shall be too minor.

2. In that the accused, even though he was NA neighbor, has weak ability to protect himself due to mental disability, and thus requires social interest and protection as well as personal respect as a subject of sexual crimes, the criminal liability is not weak in that he was the subject of sexual crimes;

In addition, it seems that the attitude of recognizing and reflecting his mistake in the initial stage of the investigation immediately after the crime was committed, while it appears that the depth was divided after the prosecution investigation by the court of original instance and the court of original instance to the court of original instance, it appears that in relation to the act of the party, it is difficult to say that the circumstances after the crime were committed do not seem to be good.

Such circumstances correspond to the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant received a letter by mutual consent between the victim and the victim.

In addition, even in the academic background that is not so high, it seems that he has been living relatively in good faith without any particular criminal power so far.

At present, it is believed that there is an excessive difficulty in maintaining livelihood by the defendant and the defendant.

Such circumstances correspond to the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

Based on these circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, health, living environment, family relationship, relationship with the victim, the background and degree of law by which the crime was committed, the circumstances after the crime, whether the damage was recovered, and the criminal records, etc. as shown in the instant argument, are comprehensively combined. In light of these factors, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is reasonable and acceptable, and contrary to the Prosecutor’s assertion, it seems that it is unreasonable to view it as being too uneasible, as otherwise alleged by the Prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.