A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The fact that all of the judgment crimes are recognized and reflected, and that the victim D, E, and G agreed smoothly is favorable to the defendant.

However, the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed without being aware of during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, the fact that there was a history of criminal punishment on several occasions, such as serving four times as the same crime or serving a sentence, and that there was no agreement with the victim C, etc., are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Therefore, in full view of the defendant's age, sexual conduct, health, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and theories in the above circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or uneasible and unfair, and thus, the defendant and the prosecutor's improper argument in sentencing is 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.