All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the lower court’s respective sentencing (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with a maximum term of three years and three years and eight hours for a short term of three years and six months; (b) the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with a maximum term of three years and two years and six months and eight hours for a short term of three years and six months; and (c) Defendant C: the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with a maximum term of three years and six months and eight hours for a short term of two years and six months and six months; and (d) it is unreasonable for each of the above sentencing to be too unscheduled and unfair (the prosecutor). On the contrary, the sentencing of the judgment is based on the statutory penalty, at a discretion that is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, by taking into account the two factors on which the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendants to the above-mentioned sentence. The circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendants and the Prosecutor in the trial are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the sentence.

Defendant

On September 2016, A and B, together with other accomplices, have shown a bad atmosphere in which victims H (or 13 years of age) have been able to take the examination.