The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair in sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (an order to attend a lecture to treat sexual assault for three years and forty hours in a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) is deemed unreasonable and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing stated in its reasoning, such as the fact that the Defendant committed a crime by abusing trust with the male-gu E of the victim and the victim, etc., the circumstance unfavorable to the sentencing of the first instance court by the prosecutor has already been determined in the lower court by sufficiently considering the fact that the Defendant is a criminal defendant and the victim did not have any criminal discretion.

It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion, prosecutor.