The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The above sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable as it is excessively uneasible. 2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure and notification orders and employment restriction orders.

2. The Defendant appears to have an attitude against the Defendant regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing by both the Defendant and the prosecutor, recognizing all of the instant crimes.

The defendant is an elementary offender who has no record of criminal punishment.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is an indecent act committed by the defendant for about 30 minutes against the victim, who is a juvenile under the influence of alcohol and is unable to resist. In light of the course and method of the crime, it is not good that the crime is committed.

The victim seems to have suffered a considerable sense of sexual humiliation as well as mental impulse due to the crime of this case committed by the defendant, and it seems to have negative impacts on the psychological growth and the formation of sound sexual identity or values in the future.

The Defendant received a letter from the victim or did not reach an agreement with regard to the instant crime.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering the various factors of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to be unreasonable and unreasonable, and it does not seem to be unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is justified and the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is with merit, and thus, the prosecutor’s appeal is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor’s unfair argument of exemption from disclosure and notification order and employment restriction order.