The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (a 5 years of suspended execution of 3 years of imprisonment, a 80-hour sexual assault treatment program course, and a 200-hour community service) on the gist of the prosecutor’s appeal is unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. However, the circumstance of sentencing asserted by the prosecutor in the lower court is sufficiently considered when determining the punishment at the lower court, and there is no special change in circumstances in the sentencing conditions.

Although it is inappropriate for the Defendant to state the Defendant as the primary offender in the reasoning of the lower judgment due to the previous conviction of a fine, the change in circumstances to the extent that the lower court’s sentencing would be changed even if considering such circumstances.

It is difficult to see it.

According to this, the sentencing of the court below is too low compared to the degree of responsibility of the defendant, and is at the discretion.