The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 3 million, and completion of sexual assault treatment programs 40 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the following, the lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, as the new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment, and even considering the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too narrow and exceeded the scope of the reasonable discretion of sentencing.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Provided, however, there are special circumstances in which disclosure of personal information may not be disclosed in the column of "Exemption from disclosure order or notification order" of the judgment below

Since it is judged, it is not ordered to disclose or notify the defendant.

“Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes” (Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; the proviso to Article 49(1) and the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse may not disclose personal information.

Since it is judged, it is not ordered to disclose or notify the defendant.

Inasmuch as it is apparent that the entry is a clerical error, ex officio correction shall be made in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.