2. The Defendant committed an indecent act on his part against the victim who spreaded or resisted the indecent act in question and continued to commit an indecent act. In light of the method and content of the offense, the frequency of the offense, and the details of the offense.

The Defendant had been punished twice due to the crime of injury resulting from rape and the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Conduct in Public Crows), and committed the instant crime even during the period of repeated crime resulting from the above rape.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime and misunderstanding is divided.

The victim does not want the punishment of the defendant under the mutual consent with the victim.

In addition, in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing as the conditions of sentencing specified in the records and pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, property, and circumstances after the crime, and the first instance court did not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and the first instance court’s sentencing is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or too unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument 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.