A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, 40 hours of lecture for sexual assault treatment, 160 hours of community service order, 3 years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s decision because the materials for sentencing were not submitted in the trial (in civil litigation instituted by the victim against the defendant against the defendant, conciliation was concluded on February 3, 2020, but the protocol does not state that the victim does not want punishment against the defendant, and in light of the fact that the defendant is obliged to compensate the victim for damages, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing was changed to the extent that the court’s sentencing was changed). In full view of the factors revealed in the course of the pleadings of the instant case, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or un

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

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

However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, it is evident that the proviso of Article 42 was written by mistake in the “1. concurrent crimes” column, and thus, the rules on criminal procedure.