All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 million won) imposed on Defendant A and the above sentence imposed on Defendant B, which the lower court committed against Defendant A, is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first deliberation 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 sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, with respect to the unfair assertion of sentencing against Defendant A and the prosecutor against Defendant A, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the entire crime of this case was acknowledged by Defendant A, who denied a part of the crime of this case at the lower court, and it did not appear to have changed to the extent to change the sentencing of the lower court. However, it does not appear to have changed to the extent of changing the situation to which the lower court would change the sentencing, and in addition, the lower court’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, it is too unreasonable or excessive beyond the reasonable scope of sentencing.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(c)

With respect to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing against Defendant B, in light of the above legal principles, the health team and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the grounds for sentencing were already reflected in the lower court’s sentencing grounds. While the prosecutor did not submit new materials for sentencing from the prosecutor in the trial at the same time, Defendant B recognized the instant crime since it was in the trial at the same time. In addition, Defendant B’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, circumstance, means, and consequence of the instant crime.