All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment for eight months, two years of probation, one year of protection observation, 40 hours of sexual assault therapy instruction, 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

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

2. As stated in its holding, the lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the Defendant is appropriate, and it does not seem that it is too heavy or too minor, as alleged by the Defendant, or as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In accordance with Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018, which was enforced from July 17, 2018, the court shall issue an employment restriction order, simultaneously with the judgment on a sex offense case against a child, juvenile, or adult, but in light of the following factors: the defendant’s age, occupation, existence of punishment for a sex offense, details and motive of the offense, method of and consequence of the offense, seriousness of the offense, etc., there are special circumstances in which the risk of re-offending is remarkably low or the employment is not restricted pursuant to the proviso to Article 56(1) of the aforementioned amended Act.

Since it is judged, it is not ordered to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant.

4. In conclusion, each appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.