The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program) that unjustly alleged the sentencing is too unfilled, and the determination of the sentence is unreasonable.

2. As new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court’s judgment, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to those of the lower court.

Taking into account all the sentencing factors revealed in the appellate trial, the lower court’s sentence is too minor to the extent that it exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion of the court.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. In light of the Defendant’s age, occupation and environment, social ties, details and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, the outline, and the fact that there is no criminal punishment due to a sex offense, etc., the risk of recidivism is significantly low.

In addition, in light of other circumstances such as the degree and expected side effects of the defendant's disadvantage and the prevention effect of sexual crimes that can be achieved thereby, and the effect of protecting the victims of sexual crimes such as children and juveniles from sexual crimes, there are special circumstances where the defendant should not be issued an employment restriction order.

Therefore, according to Article 3 and the proviso of Article 56 (1) of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse ( January 16, 2018), the defendant is not subject to an employment restriction order.

4. The appeal by the prosecutor of the 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.