All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

In addition, the court below's exemption from the disclosure order and notification order of the defendant's personal information could not be deemed to be a special reason for disclosure or notification of the defendant's personal information.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the lower court’s sentencing is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is not likely to be committed by the Defendant’s indecent act by force against a victim who was living together for seven years as his/her father and female living together.

The victim suffered a big mental impulse due to the crime of this case and wanted to be punished by the defendant.

On the other hand, there are no criminal records except that the defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflects his/her mistake, and sentenced to a fine due to drinking driving in the past.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions of sentencing specified in the sentencing review process of the court below, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines according to the sentencing guidelines is from June to five years.

In full view of the foregoing, the lower court’s determination of sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

The grounds for unfair sentencing asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor in this court are the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account the Defendant’s punishment while determining the Defendant, and even if adding all other materials additionally discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is not unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s judgment as it is.

The defendant and the prosecutor's argument on unreasonable sentencing are all.