The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable not only because the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a two-year grace period) is too unfortunate, but also it is unreasonable that the court below did not issue an order of disclosure or notification to the defendant.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime from the fourth trial date of the lower trial on the fourth trial on the date of the lower trial, and took a misunderstanding, and reflects the depth of the Defendant, and deposited 28 million won for the victim, the mother, who is the legal representative of the victim, paid the above money, and the fact that the Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case, as a bus driver of an English school where children, including the victim, attend the school and children, have committed an indecent act against the victim who is six years of age and is responsible for safely protecting the children and returning to the Republic of Korea. In light of the process, method, relationship between the defendant and the victim, etc. of the crime, the crime of this case is heavy, and the scope of the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines for the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court, the lower court determined that the crime of this case falls under one of the types "the crime of indecent act by compulsion (subject

(3) The lower court’s judgment 14-15th day of the lower judgment. However, the lower court’s judgment held that the victim’s age at the time of the instant crime falls under one of the types of “sex crimes under the age of 13” (the lower court appears to have determined the above types of crimes because the prosecutor was indicted due to a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act), and the lower court’s application of the type of criminal facts.

In full view of all the conditions of sentencing including the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, etc., the sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.