A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not assault victims or damaged a computer monitoring.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may recognize the fact that the Defendant assaults victims as indicated in each of the facts charged, and damaged computer monitors.

① Each statement of the victims regarding each of the damages in the instant case is consistent and contradictory.

② The victims made a concrete and consistent statement about the details and details of the assault and damage to property and the circumstances before and after the damage, and the explanation of the situation also is reasonable.

③ The statements of H, a witness of each of the instant crimes, also conform to the statements of the victims.

④ The lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous as to whether the victims and H’ statements were reliable or not.

There are no special circumstances to see.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. It is recognized that there is no history of the defendant's punishment exceeding the fine due to the same kind of crime, and that the defendant suffers from the disease of stimulative disorder.

However, in full view of the fact that the payment of damages was not made at all, the victims wanted to punish the defendant, and other various circumstances such as the motive, background, means and methods of the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, and the defendant’s age, sexual behavior, career, environment, etc., the punishment of the court below is too heavy or too unreasonable.

The argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is groundless.