All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were recorded by Defendant 1, who is not the body of E, and even if the body part taken does not fall under the body part of “it may cause sexual humiliation or humiliation,” which is the back water and shoulder part of E, even though they were taken, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (a fine of five million won, 40 hours’ order to complete a program, 40 hours’ order, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1 of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant had taken a face of melting the side B, there is error in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unfasible

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted that he could not have taken the body of E and taken the wall only when considering the height of the toilet partitions at the time of the instant case. However, the Defendant stated in the court below that “it was not stored because the upper part of the back water and the shoulder was taken (the trial record 156 pages)” (the trial record is 189cm in height of the toilet partitions in which the instant crime was committed, and the Defendant’s height is 170cm in height, and the Defendant’s height is 170cm in length and can sufficiently take the body of the victim when the Defendant moves out of the wall (see, e.g., investigation record). In light of the fact that the Defendant taken the upper part of the body of the victim, the fact that the Defendant taken the upper part of the body of the victim’s body can be sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion in this part of this case is without merit.