The prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as the elements of sentencing in this court are already discovered in the hearing process of the lower court, or are sufficiently considered in the determination of the sentence against the Defendant, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the matters that are the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

Although the defendant recognized and reflected a crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was denied by the court below for the first time in this court, it is difficult to regard the sentence of the court below as a change in circumstances that can change.

If the court below comprehensively takes into account the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments and records, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the court below's sentencing is too heavy or unbrupted within the reasonable scope of discretion, even in light of the circumstances where both parties are on the grounds of appeal.

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

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.