The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for six months, two years of suspended sentence, one year of probation, and 24 hours of orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime is an unfavorable circumstance where: (a) the victim passed through the subway station at night; (b) the chest seems to have been flick; and (c) the nature of the relevant crime is not good; (d) the victim appears to have caused a considerable mental shock, maternity, sexual humiliation; and (e) the victim was unable to obtain a license from the victim and did not recover from the damage.

However, there are more favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the crime is recognized and reflected, the fact that the defendant suffers from a man's illness, etc., and the fact that he seems to have influenced the occurrence of the instant case, and that he had committed a contingent crime with drinking at the time, there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and that he has endeavored to treat his own mental disorder after the instant crime.

The court below determined the punishment by taking into account the above circumstances equally, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that could change the sentence of the court below on the ground that the new sentencing data was not submitted for the time of the trial.

In addition, the lower court’s punishment is determined as appropriate, and it does not seem that it excessively is unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view of various circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing as shown in the sentencing review process of the lower court, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, the background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The appeal by the Prosecutor of the Conclusion.