All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (unfair sentencing) (4 years of suspended sentence in imprisonment with prison labor for three years) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) It is unreasonable that the lower court did not issue an order to disclose and notify the personal information of the Defendant in light of the relationship, frequency, etc. between the Defendant and the victims, etc.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and where the sentencing by the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in its holding, comprehensively taken into account all favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the defendant, determined the sentence in light of all the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and recognized that the lower court’s punishment was appropriately determined in consideration of the important circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that could reduce or increase the sentence of the lower court in the

In addition, even considering the fact that the amount of a private school pension to be received by the defendant is reduced in cases where a judgment sentencing the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and multiple sentencing conditions as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act becomes final and conclusive, the lower court’s punishment is excessively heavy or unhued so that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion given to the lower court.

It does not appear.

Ultimately, since it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court, all of the arguments of the Defendant and the Prosecutor cannot be accepted.

B. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of exemption from disclosure or notification order, the lower court held that the Defendant had no record of punishment for sexual crimes prior to the instant crime, and that the Defendant’s order to attend a lecture, employment restriction order, and personal information registration alone could prevent recidivism.

The personal information of the defendant is disclosed on the basis of the fact that it appears.