The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The summary of the judgment of the court below and the claimant for the observation order of the protection under the same apartment complex (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") reported the situation in which the victim living in the same apartment complex (the remaining and the 11 years of age) saw one of his/her own hand before the present apartment house, and consequently, the victim's sexual organ formation (the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a indecent act committed by a minor under the age of 13) was charged as the facts charged and filed a claim for the protection observation order. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, sentenced the defendant to order the correction of sexual assault treatment program with a fine of 15 million won and 40 hours, and dismissed the claim for the protection order.

According to Articles 21-8 and 9(4)3 of the former Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc. (amended by Act No. 16923, Feb. 4, 2020) Article 21-8 and Article 9(4)3 of the same Act, where a fine is imposed on a defendant, the request for the order of protection observation shall be dismissed.

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal (public prosecutor) is unreasonable because the above punishment (such as a penalty of KRW 15 million) declared by the court below is too unfilled.

2. Determination

A. The part of the defendant case: the prosecutor's unfair judgment on the prosecutor's unfair argument of sentencing 1) The sentencing of the relevant legal principle is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific case's contents.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines.

In full view of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, the lower court.