A. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the completion of the sexual assault treatment program 40 hours, and the order of disclosure and notification of personal information between three years) is too unreasonable.

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

2. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflects the fact that he/she was punished for the same kind of crime, but this is the one prior to 10 years, the Defendant was unaware of himself/herself in an unsound environment, and it seems that the present economic situation is not good.

On the other hand, in light of the method and circumstances, etc., the crime of this case is not good, and the victim appears to have suffered a huge mental impulse due to the crime of this case, and even though the defendant did not agree with the victim up to the trial, he did not take any measures to recover the damage.

In addition, in full view of the background of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., as well as the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the aforementioned 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.