The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the court below is too uncomfortable.

2. The crime of this case requires strict punishment against the defendant, taking into account the fact that the defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim under the age of 13 who was a student as a learning-based teacher and the nature of the crime is not good.

However, the Defendant’s mistake is divided, the Defendant was the first offender, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor and the order to provide community service and attend lectures together with the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, the Defendant did not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the lower court is difficult to deem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion. In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable, and the prosecutor’s

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However) However, Article 16(2) and (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes in Chapter 3 of the lower judgment is a clerical error in the text of Article 21(2) and Article 21(4) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is obvious that “Article 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes