A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that: (a) the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s unfair arguments on the sentencing of each of the instant offenses together were examined; (b) the liability for the instant offenses was grave; (c) the Defendant had been sentenced to suspended execution and punishment several times for the same offense; and (d) the Defendant repeatedly committed each of the instant offenses without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same offense; and (c) the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victims.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant has led to the confession of all crimes; (b) the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case, and committed all of the crimes in this case; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes in this case; and (d) all of the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings in this case, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate; (b) it is too heavy or too unreasonable.

Therefore, each argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is apparent that the "Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act was erroneously omitted in the application column of the law from among the judgment below, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1)