The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below to the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the defendant”) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the Defendant case does not have any extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that all criminal facts are recognized and the mistake is divided, and that there is a mental body of the longitude.

However, even though the Defendant was sentenced several times of imprisonment due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the Defendant was arrested as an offender committing an attempted crime on November 7, 2012 and was released on November 7, 2012. On the following day, the Defendant again committed an indecent act by compulsion, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and method of committing an offense, and circumstances of sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and method of committing an offense, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is deemed unfair, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is reasonable.

B. In the trial of the case where the attachment order was requested by the prosecutor, the prosecutor applied for the attachment order, and comprehensively taking account of the defendant's same military records and the results of the investigation conducted by the probation office, the "sloping wall" and the "risk of the crime" are recognized

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the case requesting an attachment order is consolidated as follows.

Punishment of the crime

Since the facts constituting an offense acknowledged by this court are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On July 12, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced by the Gwangju High Court to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and executed on October 31, 2012.