All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with 5 years and 40 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable (the defendant). On the contrary, the above sentencing is too unfasible and unfair (the prosecutor). 2. Determination on the sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty, is based on the two factors on which the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act are imposed within a reasonable and reasonable scope.

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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant and the prosecutor in the trial are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the punishment, and the lower court’s determination of the punishment was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant and prosecutor's argument.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.