2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the lower court rendered a sentence in consideration of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., under consideration of the following circumstances: (b) the victim was returned to the victim; (c) the victim did not want the punishment against the Defendant by solely agreement with the victim; and (d) the victim did not want the punishment against the Defendant; and (e) the victim had no record of being punished by the larceny since around 2010; (e) the Defendant had been punished several times for the same crime; and (e) the Defendant committed the crime without being able to do so during the period of repeated crime.

As seen earlier, the court below had already taken into account the circumstances in determining the Defendant’s punishment or changed the above sentencing conditions, as alleged by the prosecutor, for the reason for the improper sentencing (incompetence of the nature of the crime, many criminal records of the same kind, the period of repeated crimes, and the risk of repeating a crime) alleged by the prosecutor.

Considering the above factors, it seems difficult to recognize the sentence of the court below as being too heavy within the reasonable scope of the discretion, or it seems unfair because it is too low.

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

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