A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and sentencing) disclosed her mar with the consent of the victims, and such act does not constitute abuse that causes a sense of sexual humiliation as stipulated in the Child Uniforms Act.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too minor.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant’s act of demanding the victims of her age to affix back her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment because new data on sentencing have not been submitted at the trial of the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor. In addition to the circumstances described in the reasons for sentencing and all other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the defendant seems to be determined within the scope of the court’s discretion of sentencing, and is too heavy or less severe.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. Conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is all dismissed.