B All appeals against the Defendant A by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. In light of the various sentencing conditions of Defendant B in the instant case, the punishment imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completing sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of disclosure and notification) is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, such as the prosecutor (defendant A)’s statement in the victim H’s investigative agency, the court below acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in this case on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize that the victim was in a state of difficulty to resist due to alcohol,” although the court below found Defendant A not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that “It is difficult to recognize that the victim was in a state of difficulty to resist due to alcohol.” The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “the state of non-smoking”

2. Determination:

A. With respect to the appeal filed by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”), the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant’s case against Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the part of the Defendant’s case for which the request to attach an electronic device was filed only by the Defendant. As such, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part of the Defendant’s case for which the Defendant was convicted (limited to the case for attachment order under Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders). However, in the instant case where only the Defendant appealed, the lower court did not have any interest to review and determine the case for which the request to attach an electronic device was filed, and did not find any

(2) Examining the various sentencing conditions of the instant case, the Defendant argued to the effect that he denies a part of the instant crime in the investigative agency and the lower court, but at the time of the trial, the Defendant’s mistake by citing all of the instant crimes.