The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service order 120 hours) is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is made within the reasonable and appropriate scope after the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Even though the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, the lower court determined the punishment by taking into account the fact that the victim wanted the severe punishment in the first instance.

In full view of the reasons for sentencing revealed in the proceedings of this case, it is difficult to see that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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