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

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

2. The fact that the judgment defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected it is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, there are records of punishment five times including punishment due to the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, and the crime of this case was committed without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of this crime, and the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties should be punished as a crime that impairs the legitimate exercise of public authority, and should be punished strictly as a crime that impairs the function

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive for and frequency of the instant crime; and (b) the circumstances after the instant crime were committed; and (c) the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, cannot be deemed unfair.

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.