The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence (3 million won in punishment, and 40 hours in sexual assault treatment programs) declared by the court below against the defendant is too unfilled.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As new sentencing data are not submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the circumstances for which the prosecutor claims for the reason of sentencing are unfair, are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court; the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime; the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was no history of punishment for the same offense; the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same offense; the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, degree of damage, motive, means and consequence after the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unfeasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.