The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, the suspension of execution for three years) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court deemed that the Defendant, as an external instructor of a middle school student’s table system, was disadvantageous to the Defendant, to the extent that he/she met the sexual organ of the victim D, who was merely 12 years old during the class as an external instructor of a middle school student, caused another student to keep the sexual organ of the above victim, and caused 12 years old and older children to keep the sexual organ of the above victim, and thereby, committed sexual abuse by showing obscene video to 10 children under 12 years old and older, the nature of the crime is not good, the damage is likely to hinder the children from forming a sound sexual values in the future, and the Defendant was unable to agree with the victims.

On the other hand, it is difficult to view that the Defendant recognized the entire crime of this case as committing the crime of this case, and was the first offender with no criminal records, and that there was any intention to obtain sexual satisfaction without focusing on the type of force and the degree of indecent act exercised against the victim D, and that there was no other intent to obtain sexual satisfaction. The Defendant did not commit a crime with violent speech and expression differently due to any contingent crime that has been committed, and the Defendant, who is an entrusted instructor due to the conviction of this case, is limited to the employment of the child and juvenile-related institutions, such as sports facilities for a considerable period of time, and the community service order can expect certain punishment and improvement effects as the Defendant imposed a social service order. In addition, the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant was determined by taking account of various sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Sentencing revealed in the sentencing review process of the lower court.