All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant - The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

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

It is improper that the court below did not issue an order to disclose personal information to the defendant.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the event that no change in the conditions of sentencing exists in comparison with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) The lower court, as stated in its holding, shows an attitude favorable to the Defendant (in the context of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., drinking), and the latter concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act (e., the principle of equity with the case should be considered) and unfavorable circumstances [i.g., the number of times of sexual trafficking and the purchase of sex by juveniles is considerably high, and the number of times of sexual intercourse with the two juveniles does not change, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to view it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260).