All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant (the imprisonment of six months, the completion of the sexual assault therapy program for 40 hours, the disclosure of information between three years and employment restrictions, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s attempt to take photographs was made without any attempt to do so; (b) the Defendant recognized each crime in the first instance and expressed his/her intent to reflect; and (c) the Defendant has no criminal history exceeding fines.

However, the nature of each crime is not very good.

The defendant's efforts to recover damage is dead, and the victim suffered secondary damage by denying the crime until the first instance trial.

In addition, the defendant has been sentenced to a fine because he has committed the same crime.

As such, the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are also significant.

Furthermore, there is no fundamental change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court because a new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial. In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of a crime, means and consequence of a crime, and the circumstances after a crime, etc., the sentencing of the first instance court is too heavy or unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments on unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusions