The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order80 hours, the order to attend the sexual traffic prevention 40 hours, the additional collection of penalties) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined after the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference from the appellate court’s opinion is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from sentencing without any difference between the first instance judgment and the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s reasonable scope of sentencing is beyond the bounds of discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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