The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unlawful in sentencing) is that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a prison term of 10 months, a suspended sentence of 2 years, a observation of protection, a community service order of 80 hours, an order to provide sexual assault treatment lectures for 40 hours) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The judgment below found the Defendant at the main points operated by the victimized person, and committed the instant crime by forcing the Defendant to commit the instant crime by committing an indecent act by driving the Defendant with the victim, etc. who escaped to the damaged knicker, driving the Defendant at the back of the victim, etc.

In 2014, the Defendant had been punished for a fine of KRW 10 million due to a violation of the Medical Service Act and a crime of fraud. On the day of the instant case, the Defendant sought again the victim, who had been in the past, committed an indecent act by force against the victim, and in the process, the victim forced the victim to file a complaint against the Defendant and received the agreed amount. At night, the victim, who was the aged female at night, who was married in the place of business, was sexually sexual humiliation, and was sexual humiliation and fear.

The Defendant failed to take any specific steps to recover the damage of the victim, and the Defendant did not take any particular measures for the victim’s recovery.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant's crime of this case is acknowledged when he was in the trial, and the defendant's body part of the victim's body was sloak and the degree of indecent act is very serious.

It is not visible that the defendant had no record of committing the crime, including the sexual crime, except punishment imposed once before the crime of this case was committed. It is favorable to the defendant.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it should be respected.