A. The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The lower court sentenced a sentence of two years and six months to imprisonment by taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the nature of the instant crime is not good, the fact that the victim was deemed to have suffered a huge mental impulse due to the said crime, and that it seems to have an adverse impact on the victim’s sexual identity and value formation in the future, etc., the lower court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor, taking into account the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the entire crime, and that there was no record of sexual assault crimes.

In full view of the aforementioned sentencing conditions revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too heavy or too weak, even if considering the circumstances where the Defendant expressed his/her intent that he/she would not want the Defendant to be punished by the legal representative of the victim (parent) and that the Defendant would not want to be punished by the Defendant at the trial of the first instance, and that he/she committed sexual assault against humanity as an external village of the victim. At the time of the instant crime, the victim was a child of 8 and 9 years old at the time of the instant crime, and the victim was a child of 8 and 9 years old.

It does not appear.

The argument that the sentencing of each of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is 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.