A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the Defendant participated in the cash-related liability for the criminal act of licensing and the nature of the crime is somewhat weak, the Defendant did not lead or lead the criminal act, and the frequency of the criminal act was only one time and the criminal act was committed, and the Defendant acquired particular benefits from the criminal act.

In light of the following facts: (a) it is difficult to see that there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentencing after the judgment of the court below; and (b) taking into account all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or too unreasonable, and thus, the above argument by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

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