A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. The instant crime requires strict punishment against the Defendant when considering the following: (a) the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim who is a child or juvenile; (b) the nature of the instant crime is not good; and (c) the victim’s age as a result of the instant crime was aware of considerable mental impulse and standing.

However, there is no criminal history against the defendant, that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, and that there was no change in the conditions of sentencing and the sentencing of the original judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, since the defendant has recognized the crime, committed the crime, committed the crime, committed the crime against the defendant, committed the crime without any criminal history against the defendant.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, sex and environment, health condition, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, family relationship, property, and import level, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

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