The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of KRW 7 million, order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, confiscation) declared by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In order to illegally photograph the appearance of a minor victim, the Defendant intruded into a female toilet, and taken a photograph of the appearance of the said victim to view it as a cryp.

The victim seems to have suffered considerable mental pain due to the crime of this case.

The defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim.

However, the Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and opposed thereto.

As a result of digital siren of the Defendant’s cell phone seized on the day of the crime of this case, the file (including deleted files) in which video images were recorded from the Defendant’s cell phone was not discovered. It seems that the video is not leaked to the outside.

The defendant has no history of criminal punishment.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and consequences, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the Defendant goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.