A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (6 million won in penalty, 40 hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, and confiscation) by the court below is too unfilled and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too 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 court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the fact that the criminal nature of the instant crime is inferior by, for instance, repeating the Defendant’s planned crime against the victim; (b) the fact that the Defendant was unable to take advantage of the victim; (c) however, taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) the fact that the Defendant did not have any record of other crimes except for the one-time fine, was determined by taking into account the fact that the Defendant’s mistake and reflects the Defendant’s one-time fine; and

When the sentencing of the lower court’s judgment is fully taken into account in the first instance court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

Inasmuch as there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too weak or unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the defendant and prosecutor's argument.

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.