Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service order, 40 hours of sexual assault therapy order) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unreasonable. 2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Plaintiff from the disclosure and notification order of personal information and the employment restriction order.

2. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant that the Defendant neglected the victim who expressed his intention of refusal of sexual relationship several times and continued rape and the crime is not good. The victim appears to have received a considerable sense of sexual humiliation and mental impulse due to the instant crime.

On the other hand, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, that the defendant did not want the punishment of the defendant when the defendant reached an agreement with the victim, that the defendant was the first offender, and that the family of the defendant want to take the action of the defendant.

As above, comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions stipulated by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and consequence, as well as the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and in addition to the fact that no particular change of circumstances is found in relation to the sentencing conditions after the sentence of the lower judgment, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendant is too heavy or unreasonable to the extent that it is recognized that the sentence imposed on the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s argument of unreasonable sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. The defendant had no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case, the defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency while under the influence of alcohol, and the defendant is deemed to have committed the instant crime.