A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: the crime of this case was committed by the defendant 13 years of age who was a minor, left the victim from the protection relation of the protection and supervision authority for 17 days, and the crime was committed against the victim and the sexual intercourse. In particular, it is acknowledged that the defendant is an instructor who teaches the victim to another student, and that there is a need to strictly punish the minor who left the school as his father who is his father with the same age as the victim, even though the defendant should guide the minor.

However, in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and is too heavy or unreasonable, in so doing, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is deemed as inappropriate and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, since each appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.