2. In light of the circumstances where strict measures are required with respect to the act interfering with the performance of official duties, the lower court, under which the Defendant recognized the instant crime and did not repeat the same mistake, did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime, received a letter from the victim E, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the fact that the said victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment, and determined the sentence by taking into account the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments.

The grounds for the improper sentencing alleged by the Defendant (the instant crime was caused by the failure to pay local tax of KRW 380,000, the Defendant recognized all the charges, reflects the Defendant’s agreement with the victim, the Defendant’s economic situation, etc.) and the grounds for the improper sentencing (the need to improve the public authority’s landscape, the nature of the crime, and the absence of good faith) alleged by the Prosecutor appears to have been determined by the lower court, which has already considered sufficiently in determining the sentence against the Defendant, and otherwise changed the above sentencing conditions.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

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