The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unfased and unfair.

2. The Defendant, under the influence of alcohol in subway, committed an indecent act on the part of the victim by cutting off the victim with the victim, leaving the platform, and putting the victim on three occasions in the platform.

In light of the crime details and contents, it is not good that the crime is committed.

Although the victim was deemed to have caused a considerable sense of sexual humiliation due to the instant crime, the Defendant did not receive a letter of suspicion from the victim.

Even though there is a previous conviction of a fine of KRW 3 million due to an indecent act committed by the Defendant under the same law as the instant case, there is little possibility of criticism in that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

However, the Defendant recognized the crime of this case, and runs counter to his fault in depth.

The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent manner by discovering a victim who was under the influence of alcohol.

The degree of force used by the defendant is not heavy, and the degree of conduct is relatively minor.

Although the defendant has been punished as a sentence for another type of crime, it is in the year of 2006, there is no criminal record exceeding the fine.

As the mother of the defendant is leading the defendant, the mother of the defendant wants to take the action against the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, it seems more reasonable to impose the Defendant’s sentence, rather than immediately isolation from society, to give the Defendant an opportunity to undergo a single member of society, rather than immediately isolation from society. As such, it is unreasonable to give the Defendant an opportunity to undergo a single member of society. Therefore, it is unreasonable to deem that the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutors.