The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. The crime of this case is an indecent act committed by the victim who had resided in the apartment complex that he/she was living in the same apartment complex (if he/she is aged 6, he/she is playing in the apartment playground, and the victim was approaching the apartment playground, and thus, the nature of the crime is very poor.

The victim is a female child of six years of age with autism and without any reason after the crime of this case, and seems to have experienced confusion in the formation of sexual values as well as considerable mental impulses, such as showing the appearance of a parent's sexual organ and acting for the escape.

However, Defendant (74C) is in the remaining condition due to 30 to 40% of brain function due to cerebral dystrophy's disease in the middle of the stroke, and there seems to be a problem such as cerebral gystrophy and dystrophy's disability and degradation of suppression power due to dementia, and such physical problems of Defendant were one of the causes of the instant occurrence.

The south of the defendant agreed with the parents of the victim on behalf of the defendant, and the victim does not want to punish the defendant.

The family members of the defendant expressed their intent to protect the defendant so that the defendant does not repeat the same act as the crime of this case.

A defendant has no record of criminal punishment, except for a fine imposed on two occasions, and has no record of punishment for a sexual crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., all of the sentencing conditions and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair as it is too unfasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit.