A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of restriction on employment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the determination of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant taken the victim’s bucks, mucks, mucks, etc. under the influence of several times, or taken the image of the victim’s sexual intercourse with the Defendant.

The Defendant was unable to receive correspondence from most victims.

On the other hand, the Defendant recognized all the crimes of this case and is against the law.

The defendant agreed with one victim whose identity has been confirmed.

It seems that the images taken by the defendant are not disseminated.

Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the result thereof, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable because it exceeded the appropriate and reasonable scope of discretion.

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

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and each of them is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.