The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and four years of suspended execution and 80 hours of an order to attend sexual assault treatment courses), which the court below sentenced, is unreasonable, because it is too unfeasible.

2. In a case where the appellate court did not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment in the appellate court.

The defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim who is 12 years of age only at the time of each of the crimes in this case, and committed a indecent act by compulsion once, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances and contents of each of the crimes in this case. The victim suffered considerable physical and mental shock and pain due to each of the crimes in this case, and parents of the victim suffered considerable mental shock and pain, and the victim was punished in the appellate court even by the victim's severe punishment because the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim until now.

However, there are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case as to each of the crimes of this case, the Defendant was a minor under 16 years of age at the time of each of the crimes of this case, and the fact that the victim and the deceased were in conflict with the victim, that the Defendant did not use assault, threat, or force during each of the crimes of rape with the minor of this case, and that the Defendant did

In full view of the above circumstances and various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as seen earlier, the lower court’s sentence to the Defendant is beyond the reasonable scope of discretion and cannot be deemed unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is dismissed on the ground of appeal.