A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of KRW 3 million, forfeiture No. 1, and order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We examine both the defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the sentence is declared, and the court below’s punishment is appropriate in full view of the circumstances and various conditions of sentencing indicated in the grounds for sentencing, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the court below’s punishment is excessively heavy or light beyond the reasonable limit of discretion.

Therefore, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments on unfair sentencing are not accepted.

3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition

[However, the decision on whether to issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) and Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act should be made. The court below judged that there are special circumstances for the defendant not to issue an employment restriction order under the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act for the same reason as the court below stated in the exemption of the employment restriction order for children and juveniles-related institutions. Thus, the defendant