A. In light of the fact that a defense counsel (unfairness) committed each of the crimes of this case in drinking alcohol, contingently, the defendant committed a mistake, and certain victims (G) do not want the punishment of the defendant, etc., the sentence of the court below that sentenced the defendant to provide community service and attend lecture for 160 hours and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor (unfair) committed the secondary crime against G attending the same school in the second instance without any reflection from the fact that the Defendant committed the crime against the victim D, who is a university motive, and there is no evidence to verify that the damage was properly recovered or the Defendant was against, the sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The Defendant repeatedly committed each of the instant crimes within a relatively short period, and committed a crime again depending on the victims who want to avoid committing an indecent act, etc., and the quality of the crime is not weak, and even if only one of the victims D is strongly punished up to the trial, the Defendant is strongly punished.

On the other hand, the other victim G expresses his intention that the other victim G does not want the punishment of the defendant, and there is no record of criminal punishment of the defendant.

In addition, considering the motive and background of each of the crimes in this case, the circumstances before and after the crime, the degree of damage, and other various matters prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are conditions for sentencing, such as the character and conduct of the defendant and the environment, as shown in the records and arguments in this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the defendant is too heavy, or unreasonable because it is too

Therefore, the above ground of appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, and all of them are in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.