The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for 8 months, taking lectures to treat sexual assault for 40 hours, and providing community service for 80 hours) is unreasonable as it is excessively uneasible.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the fact that the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, including the following facts: (a) there is a heavy crime such as: (b) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court; and (c) there is no attitude against the Defendant in denying the crime; and (d) there is no sufficient reason for the Defendant to have been sentenced to a probation order beyond the scope of discretion of the first instance.

It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and thus, the sentencing of the court below is respected.