The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, one year of probation, one year of community service, 80 hours of sexual assault treatment, 40 hours of course in sexual assault treatment) declared by the court below is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, where the Defendant committed an indecent act by compulsion of a female-friendly job-friendly victim by compulsion, and the nature of the crime is not less weak, and the male-friendly Gu of the victim seems to have seen more shock of the victim by witnessing the criminal situation. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not make any particular effort to recover from damage and did not receive a letter from the victim.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant both recognizes the crime and reflects the depth at the time of the crime, the fact that the victim's male-friendly group does not seem to have exercised a strong tangible power at the time of the crime, the fact that the defendant committed a crime contingently in the whole circumstances where he does not know at any time, there is no criminal record except juvenile protective disposition, and the defendant seems to have sufficient possibility of edification and improvement in the future at the age of the beginning of the 20th century.

In light of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, family relationship, etc., the Defendant appears to have sufficiently achieved special preventive effects even if the Defendant imposes the treatment on the society, such as probation, community service order, and the suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor, which added the order to attend a lecture to undergo sexual assault treatment, can be seen as having sufficiently achieved special preventive effects. Thus, it is not unreasonable for the lower court to have imposed a sentence on the Defendant within the scope of the recommended sentence (one year to three months and four months) set forth in the sentencing guidelines.

Therefore, prosecutor's ground of appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion.