The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower judgment’s sentencing (10,00,000 won for punishment, and 40 hours for sexual assault treatment programs) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The sentencing on the basis of a statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The lower court: (a) the Defendant had the intention to purchase the juvenile’s sex from the beginning; (b) the motive and method of the instant crime that the Defendant purchased the juvenile’s sex; (c) the Defendant’s motive and method to verify it in the course of the crime; (d) the outcome and crime that the Defendant purchased the juvenile’s sex; and (e) the Defendant’s attitude that the Defendant was seen by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, such as the circumstances after the Defendant committed a crime, which was seen by the investigative agency

In addition, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing to be newly taken into account in the trial.

If so, the judgment of the court below is reasonable.