The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the sentencing conditions by considering the part of the Defendant case, the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of an order to attend sexual assault treatment lecture, 80 hours of an order to attend a alcohol treatment lecture, and 80 hours of an order to attend a alcohol treatment) is deemed unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below that dismissed the request of the respondent for an attachment order even if the victim's request for the attachment order recognizes the risk of recidivism of sexual crimes is unfair.

2. Determination:

A. The defendant in the part of the defendant's case was sentenced to two years of the suspended sentence due to drinking driving, and was under the suspended sentence for eight months, and was under the suspended sentence, the defendant was driving again again, even though he was under the suspended sentence, and it is not good that the defendant committed an indecent act with the victim's chest that the victim's chest that the juvenile working at the convenience store should have access to the victim and frighten the victim's chest, and it is not good that the above victim did not reach an agreement with the above victim up to the present day. In addition, it is necessary to punish the defendant significantly because the defendant had a record of drinking

On the other hand, however, the extent of the Defendant’s indecent act is relatively weak, the Defendant appears to have seriously reflected the Defendant’s criminal act during the period of confinement for about three months, and the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for a sex offense. In addition, considering the lower court’s punishment on the Defendant based on the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the records and pleadings of this case, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair, and thus, the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

B. Article 9(4) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders on the part of the case for which the attachment order is requested.