A. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and forty hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). As new sentencing data are not submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the circumstances in which the Defendant and the Prosecutor alleged for each reason for sentencing are being unfair, are likely to have already been reflected in the grounds for sentencing of the lower court. In full view of all other circumstances, including the motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be too heavy or too excessive, or so it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the defendant and prosecutor's argument.

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