The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (two years of imprisonment, four years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of lecture for treatment of sexual assault, 320 hours of community service order, 5 years of employment restriction order) of the gist of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because it is too unfasible.

2. The instant crime is deemed to have committed an indecent act by force against the victim, who is a child or juvenile under the age of 16, who lives together with the Defendant. Considering the degree of indecent act by the Defendant and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the crime is considerably heavy.

The victim seems to have a negative impact on the formation of sound sexual values in the future, along with a large mental impulse due to the crime of this case.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and did not repeat the crime in violation of the depth.

In addition to the payment of KRW 11 million to the injured party as agreed upon at the lower court, the Defendant paid an additional sum of KRW 62 million to the injured party, and reached an agreement with the mother of the injured party and the injured party. In accordance with the above agreement, the Defendant paid an additional amount of KRW 2 million to the mother of the injured party on December 2, 2020, and paid KRW 60 million each month from February 2021 to May 5, 202.

There is promising the promise.

Accordingly, the mother of the victim expressed his intention not to punish the defendant in relation to the victim.

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

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

As above, comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions stipulated under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, including the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion imposed on the Defendant, in addition to the fact that no particular change in circumstances is found in relation to the sentencing conditions after the decision of the court below.