The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 40 hours of sexual assault therapy, and 2 years of open order) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. It is true that there are favorable circumstances in determining punishment, such as the fact that the defendant generally recognizes the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, and the exercise of the tangible power of this case and the degree of indecent act by compulsion, etc. are not severe.

However, the crime of this case is a sex offense against a juvenile, and it is very poor that the victim has committed the crime, such as moving the job according to the defendant, continuing indecent act, etc., wanting to punish the victim by harming a considerable sense of sexual humiliation or aversion. According to the purpose of the defendant's statement at the investigative agency, the crimes with the above punishment records, which the defendant had been punished once a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor due to sex offense against the same-sex male, and one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor due to the sex offense against the same-sex male, are that the sexual organ of the male juvenile in the lelele or the sexual organ of the young male.

In addition, in full view of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime of the same type at the same time, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the sentence that the lower court rendered cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's argument cannot be accepted.

3. As the Defendant case appeals regarding the part of the request for attachment order, the part of the request for attachment order under Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders is deemed to have been also appealed, but the prosecutor does not separately submit the grounds for appeal and does not appear to have been determined ex officio.