The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, etc.) is too uneasible and unfair.

It is unfair that the court below exempted the disclosure and notification order from the unfair disclosure and notification order.

Judgment

The instant crime against the assertion of unfair sentencing is an act of inducing the victim of 10 years of age by compulsion, and the identity and sexual concept of the victim, whose identity and sexual concept are not yet mature, may have an adverse impact on the formation of the identity and sexual concept of the victim, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided the mistake in depth, the legal representative of the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant by agreement with the defendant, and the defendant is currently aged 73 years old, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment except that he/she was punished by a fine of KRW 700,000 as a violation of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act on May 6, 2011, is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s character and conduct, the environment, the motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and methods of committing the instant crime, the circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., all the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, and the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee (two to five years imprisonment) and the standards for suspension of execution, etc., it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

As to the unjust assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification order, the lower court appears to have the effect of preventing recidivism by the Defendant solely on the fact that the Defendant had no record of punishment for sexual assault before the instant case, the registration of personal information of the Defendant, and the taking of sexual assault therapy, and the Defendant’s age, occupation, family environment, social relationship, and the details of the instant crime.