2. Determination

A. The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, should respect the first instance sentencing judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. In light of the circumstances where the Defendant did not agree with the victims, the lower court determined a sentence by taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of a crime, circumstances after a crime, etc., and taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of a crime, etc.

(c)

Although the defendant denies the crime in the first instance court, all of the crimes in this case are recognized in the first instance court, it does not seem to be a change in sentencing conditions enough to change the punishment.

In addition, the reasons for each sentencing alleged by the defendant and the prosecutor seem to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment of the defendant.

Therefore, considering the above sentencing conditions, the court below's punishment is judged appropriate within the reasonable scope of discretion.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.