A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions of the Defendant compared with the lower court, and even if all the sentencing grounds specified in the argument in the instant case are comprehensively considered, the lower court’s sentencing was too heavy or unfilled, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.