A. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as the Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant is an indecent act continuously committed by the victim who is a subordinate employee by taking advantage of his/her occupational position, and the nature of the crime is not good. Accordingly, the victims seem to have suffered severe mental pain, and the victims have maintained their intent to escape the Defendant’s severe punishment in the first instance trial, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In each of the crimes of this case, the degree of indecent conduct against victims is significant.

It is not visible that the defendant all of the crimes of this case are recognized and reflected, and the fact that the defendant retired from the welfare center around February 1, 2016 due to each of the crimes of this case is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, sex, family relationship, and environment, and the result of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or unhued and unfair.

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

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal and the prosecutor's appeal are without merit. Thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.