A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, 40 hours of completion of child abuse treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

(b) The above sentence against the prosecutor's defendant is too uneasible and unfair;

2. The fact that the Defendant appears to have the attitude of recognizing and opposing the offense, that the Defendant’s wife was killed while making a clibate after the instant case, and that the Defendant’s health is not good, and that there was no record of punishment except once a fine is imposed for other crimes, is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, this case was physically and emotionally abused the students of the defendant's house, and the victims had been over 8 years of age at the time of committing the crime. In light of the criminal history and means, the victim was returned as claimed by the defendant.

It is unreasonable to see that the victims and their parents have considerable mental suffering due to the instant case, and that the Defendant did not receive any remedy from the victims and did not recover any damage, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions in the instant argument, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable or too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable for the lower court to impose punishment.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor.

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