All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The Defendant committed the instant crime against the Defendant’s part of the instant case: (a) the Defendant continued to have the victim’s her butt her his or her own sexual organ attached to the elevator in the administrative welfare center; and (b) the victim was able to have his or her or her his or her own sexual organ pushed his or her own sexual organ in the corridor, thereby committing an indecent act against the victim; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he or she had installed an electronic tracking device due to the sexual assault crime committed in the past; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he or she had caused sexual humiliation; and (e) the Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the injured party, etc., is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the degree of the criminal defendant's use of force is significantly weak, the degree of the criminal conduct is also weak, and that the criminal defendant has no record of criminal punishment for about four years after the execution of punishment due to the previous crime is completed, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the above circumstances and the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive of crime, means and consequence of crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in this case, and the scope of sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court's sentencing committee (from January to January 1 year) according to the general standards of punishment [the scope of recommendation] and the scope of sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court's sentencing committee (the scope of punishment shall be from January to 1 year) in the area of special mitigation (from January to 1 year) [the person subject to special mitigation] in the area of special mitigation [the person subject to special mitigation] in cases where the exercise of tangible power is considerably weak, and the degree of prosecution is weak, it can be said that the court below's punishment against the defendant is too uneasy and unfair.