The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Despite the fact of the injury resulting from forced indecent conduct, the court below found that the injury was inflicted on the defendant, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it can be sufficiently recognized that the victim suffered the injury.

On the ground that it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of probation, 40 hours of lecture, 240 hours of community service order) is too minor.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence admitted by the prosecutor as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake, found the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and based on the following: (a) the victim’s statement and the details of issuance of the diagnosis; and (b) whether the victim’s statement and treatment were given, thereby causing disorder in physiological functions to the extent that the victim

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Determination of a prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

The first deliberation is conducted in full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing.