All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the punishment imposed by the lower court (an order of suspension of one year, 2 years of imprisonment, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures), the Defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable for the Defendant, and that the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair for the prosecutor.

2. The crime of this case is a fact that there is a need for a more severe punishment against the defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the victim, who is an intern employee in a business-related relationship, committed an indecent act by force by using the victim under the influence of alcohol; (b) the nature of the crime is inferior and highly likely to be subject to criticism in light of the circumstances and content of the crime; (c) the victim’s sexual humiliation and mental impulse appears to be reasonable; and (d) the victim still wishess to punish the defendant.

However, the defendant does not repeat again after recognizing his criminal act.

The Defendant paid the instant damages to the victim pursuant to the final judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2015Gadan 25856 Decided July 14, 2016, 2016), when the Defendant was in a party trial, and the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

Comprehensively taking into account the circumstances unfavorable or favorable to such defendant and all the sentencing conditions as the age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, etc. presented in the instant pleadings, the sentence imposed by the court below is within the scope of the sentencing discretion assigned to the court below, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too excessive or too heavy to the punishment discretion assigned to the court below.

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

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed 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.