A. The sentence of the lower court (four years of imprisonment, 200 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. The judgment of the court below held that the defendant was the first offender, and that the victim's first offense is against the defendant, and that the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant constitutes a favorable condition to the defendant. However, the crime of this case committed the crime of this case by assaulting the victim who is a juvenile who is in a de facto marital relationship with the victim's father and mother in a sound culture and coercing the victim's resistance, and by committing a similar act, it was committed in the process, and the victim's non-aggravating act was committed, considering the unfavorable circumstances, 4 years

In full view of the above sentencing conditions and four years of imprisonment with prison labor imposed by the court below, which are set up by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, and the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., the sentence against the defendant is too heavy or unfasible.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

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