The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including that the lower court’s punishment (one month of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, 40 hours of the order to attend sexual assault treatment, and 2 years of the employment restriction order) is too unfluent and unreasonable, but the Defendant appealed on the ground that his mistake was recognized, that the Defendant agreed with the victim at the time of the trial, that the Defendant did not have any history of punishment exceeding the same criminal history or fine, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant for the reasons stated in its reasoning is too unfluent and unreasonable.

Since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 1662, Nov. 26, 2019) shall be deemed to be “the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 1662, Nov. 26, 2019)” ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, and the first act shall be deemed to be “Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 16662, Nov. 26, 2019), Article 56(1) main sentence of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the main sentence of