A. The sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable for Defendant (a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months or 40 hours or more) to complete a sexual assault treatment program.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court ordered the Defendant to complete a sexual assault treatment program for a period of 10 months and 40 hours, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., under which the right to sexual self-determination has not been established to meet his/her sexual desire, and was committed against the victim, who was a juvenile for whom the right to sexual self-determination has not been established; and (b) the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime two times; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime.

B. Considering the circumstances cited by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as the grounds for each appeal, the sentencing of the lower court is unfairly heavy or light, even in light of the various circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, and the scope of the recommendation of the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission (Articles 10 through 26 months), etc.

On the other hand, the court below's order the completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours in light of the content and circumstances of the crime of this case is also appropriate.

I seem to appear.

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