A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In light of the content and circumstances of the instant crime, and the degree of indecent act, etc., the nature of the crime is not easy, and further, the Defendant is not only required to commit the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, but also did not reach an agreement with the victim, and thus, the Defendant needs to be subject to strict liability against the Defendant.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognizes his mistake and reflects his mistake, and that the defendant does not have the same criminal record.

In addition to these circumstances, taking account of the following factors: (a) various conditions of sentencing specified in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after committing the crime; and (b) the scope of recommended sentences (six months to two years) according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court (the scope of recommended sentences) [the scope of punishment] general standards; (c) the basic area (6 to two years) of the crime of indecent act by compulsion (the person aged 13 or older) (the general form of indecent act by compulsion] (the person who is a special person), it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

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