The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of two years and the completion of 40 hours for sexual assault treatment programs) is too unhued and thus the amount of the punishment is unreasonable.

2. As new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court’s judgment, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to those of the lower court.

Comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing factors revealed at the trial of this case, the lower court’s punishment is too minor to the extent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion of the court.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, since the written judgment of the court below is omitted, the written judgment of the court below is corrected by adding the written judgment of the court below 5, 2, and 3 to the written judgment of the court below ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the defendant's punishment is set in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act, which is the cause of the registration of personal information under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and crimes not falling under the same.

The period of personal information registration is 15 years pursuant to Article 45 (1) 3 and 45 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Amended by Act No. 14412, Dec. 20, 2016).

In this regard, considering the legal form and nature of each crime, severity of each crime, etc. in the judgment that caused the registration of personal information, the above registration period is not considered to be an unfair long-term period.

Therefore, the defendant's personal information registration period is not reduced.