The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, and three years of suspended execution) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. The crime of this case seems to have considerable possibility of criticism that the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, committed an indecent act against the victim who was under the influence of alcohol, and inflicted an injury in the process, and that the victim suffered from the crime of this case was also considerable mental suffering.

On the other hand, there are extenuating circumstances such as the fact that the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, that the defendant repents and reflects his mistake in depth, that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, that there is the wife and two children to support the defendant, and that the family and branch members of the defendant want to grow up with the preference of the defendant.

In addition, taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, various sentencing conditions shown in the instant argument, the scope of recommended sentences [where the result of sexual crimes, sexual crimes, injury and injury, 13 years or older, 2 years or more to 6 years or more, 2 years or more, and 5 years of imprisonment in the mitigated area of Type 2] and the standards for suspension of execution (in general positive factors, 1 years or more, and there is no criminal record or more, 2 social relation is clear, 3 years of contingent crimes, 4 years of serious reflects, and 3 years of serious reflects, etc.). The lower court’s sentence may be deemed to have determined the sentence within the scope of recommended sentences of sentencing guidelines and considered the positive and fraudulent elements in accordance with the standards for suspension of execution, and it is too unreasonable to recognize that the Defendant’s punishment belongs to the appropriate scope of punishment under the Defendant’s responsibility.