A. Defendant: The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, confiscation No. 1 and No. 2) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the judgment reflects the crime, and that there was no previous conviction from before and after 2003, etc. are favorable circumstances.

However, it is unfavorable for the following reasons: (a) the victim was detained, driving a long distance from the 110km to the 110km, and the method of committing a crime is inadequate, such as threatening the victim or compelling him/her to take clothes, etc. with dangerous things in order to continue confinement; (b) the victim is still unable to overcome fear after having undergone the crime; (c) the victim is still subject to punishment for the defendant; (d) the victim appears to have been detained even before committing the crime in this case; and (e) the fact that there were multiple violent crimes.

In addition, taking into account the motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and all the sentencing conditions as shown in the theory of changes, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too heavy or too unreasonable.

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