The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing 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). This court did not submit new materials for sentencing, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the factors of sentencing that are disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant separates and reflects his mistake, the low intelligence and intellectual disability of the defendant seems to be one of the causes of the crime, and the fact that there is no criminal punishment other than the suspension of indictment, etc., the court below’s punishment is too unfluent and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even if considering the factors of sentencing unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the nature of the crime is not good, etc.

shall not be deemed to exist.

We do not accept the prosecutor's argument that the sentencing of the court below is unfair.

2. The lower court, ex officio, found the Defendant guilty of both the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the remainder of the crime subject to the registration under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”), and subsequently, found the Defendant guilty of both the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the concurrent crime under the former part of Article

On the other hand, one fine was sentenced.

The registration period of personal information against the defendant is ten years in accordance with Article 45, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act, and in light of the sex crime which causes the registration of personal information, the nature of the remaining crimes, and the severity of the crimes, the registration period is judged to be legitimate.

Therefore, this Court does not set the period of registration of personal information against the defendant more short-term.

3. The appeal by the conclusion prosecutor is dismissed for reasons.