The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The 3rd and the 6th of the judgment of the court below, "and the 6th", and "the employment restriction order".

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a fine of three million won, a suspended sentence) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances and circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unfasible to the Defendant’s sentencing, in light of the following: (a) the lower court sentenced the aforementioned punishment to the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances: (b) the Defendant’s age was lower; (c) the Defendant’s completion of education to prevent recidivism of sexual assault, etc.; and (d) there was no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing newly in the trial; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, motive and background of the crime; and

3. As such, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since there is a clear clerical error as stated in the judgment below, it is decided to correct it ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition