A. The lower court’s punishment (four years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions of the Defendant compared to the lower court, and even if all the sentencing grounds specified in the argument of the instant case are comprehensively considered, the lower court’s sentencing was too heavy or too low, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

The argument that the sentencing of each of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.