All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts did not have any different reaction at the end of the defendant after sunrise.

The defendant sent letters that may cause a sense of sexual humiliation to the victim, and the victim brought the defendant at his own house.

In addition, the victim's statement is not reliable in light of the note that the victim sent to the defendant.

Although the court below found the victim's statement in trust and convicted all the charges, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The defendant asserts that the amount of the punishment is unfair because the defendant's punishment of the court below (the defendant completed 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the amount of the punishment is unfair because it is too unfasible, and that the amount of the punishment is unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are acceptable: (a) as to the facts acknowledged in the judgment below’s 4 pages or lower; and (b) comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the part of the facts charged that the Defendant was in a state of physical and mental loss due to the victim’s lockedness is proven without any reasonable doubt.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the appellate court submitted a written application for coaling the defendant's birth and his wife who wanted the defendant's wife, and the victim submitted a written application under the victim's name that the defendant's wife wanted to have the defendant's wife simply.

In addition, new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court.

The defendant still denies his criminal act by asserting that he is a sex relationship under the agreement with the Joa.

In this regard, it is the positive factor of mitigation or suspension of execution in the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court's sentencing committee.