Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the prosecution as to the Defendant’s assault against the Victim E and intimidation against the Victim Y, and rendered a judgment that found the Defendant guilty only on the remainder of the charges. The Prosecutor did not separately appeal the dismissed part of the indictment.

Therefore, the dismissal of the above prosecution is finalized as it is, and it is not included in the scope of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Illegal sentencing of Defendant: The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment and five years of suspended execution) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor’s improper sentencing: The lower court’s sentence is too minor.

3. We also examine both of the judgments’ unfair claims for sentencing.

First of all, the Defendant cannot be viewed as riceing the quality of the crime in terms of social defense, since the Defendant forced the victims to commit an indecent act against a child or juvenile of an unspecified number of children or juveniles on the street, causing sexual humiliation, uneasiness, etc., and committed each crime of this case that undermines social peace.

Furthermore, the defendant was already subject to punishment for the same kind of crime before and after the police in 2011, but he was sentenced to punishment for the suspension of execution of three years in June of 201, but he also committed each of the crimes of this case which committed the same kind of crime several times, which is more likely to be more severe punishment.

In addition, the Defendant did not receive a letter from all victims of each of the instant crimes.

In consideration of these circumstances, the prosecutor's assertion that the defendant needs to respond more severe punishment than that of the court below is sufficient.

On the other hand, it is necessary to consider the following circumstances in determining the punishment against the defendant.

First of all, as the court below decided, the defendant has a delay of the spirit of the middle class 2, which falls under the second class, so it is somewhat difficult for the defendant to discern things or make decisions.