All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the amount of KRW 6 million, the amount of KRW 4 million, and the amount of KRW 40 hours to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. We examine the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing. Each of the crimes of this case is not less than the nature of the crime in light of the background and method of the crime, and the victims wish to punish the defendant, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant. The fact that all of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and considering all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unfluent so that it cannot be deemed unfair. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. In full view of the contents of each of the instant crimes, the degree of damage inflicted on the victim due to each of the instant crimes, the reasons taken into account in sentencing, and the circumstances leading to the aggravation of concurrent crimes, etc., the instant case does not seem to have any circumstance to determine the period of personal information registration more short than the period according to the sentence sentenced pursuant to Article 45(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in entirety pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the application of the law of the judgment below is applicable.)

1. Article 398 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime in question is clear that the phrase “Article 398 of the Criminal Act” is a clerical error in the “Article 298 of the Criminal Act.” As such, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.