The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is broken down and reflected; (b) the degree of indecent act against the victim is weak; (c) the Defendant has no criminal record; (d) the Defendant is a disabled person of class 3 of intellectual disability; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime; (c) the means and consequence of the crime; and (d) the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, including the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the statutes of the court below, the term “1. Probation Order and Order” under the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012) is a clerical error in the main text of Article 21(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the term “1.........,” under the proviso of Articles 37(1) and 41(1) proviso of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 1156, Dec. 18, 2012) are both the proviso of Article 38(1) and the proviso of Article 2(1)5 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012).