A. In light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the defense counsel’s mistake and reflects it, and that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case by contingency, the lower court’s sentence, which sentenced the Defendant to complete a sexual assault treatment program program for a period of 8 months and 40 hours, is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendant by the public prosecutor is not good, damage is serious, and the victim wants to punish the Defendant, the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible.

2. The judgment of the court below is justified in holding that each of the crimes of this case is not reasonable since the defendant's act was committed against the defendant's wrong judgment, the defendant's age, character, environment, degree of damage, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., and all of the kinds of sentencing shown in the records and arguments of this case including the records and arguments of this case, where the victim detained the victim for about 4 hours at the victim's place of residence for about 4 hours, where the victim took care of the victim by drinking or a cell phone of the victim, etc., and the victim damaged the cell phone at the same time, and it is not good that the victim exceeded all clothes stored by the victim in order to prevent the police report, and taken the body image and photograph against the victim's will. On the other hand, the victim's punishment is recognized, and there is no record of criminal punishment, and there is no other history of criminal punishment. In full view of all the circumstances in the records and arguments of this case, the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too unreasonable.

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