All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The Defendant asserts that the punishment should be mitigated or exempted by applying Article 26 of the Criminal Act, as the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant attempted to discontinue the crime of this case had ceased to be a person after commencing the rape crime of this case.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the defendant stated by the prosecutor that "the victim was not resisted by the victim, who left away from her will" (the 92 pages of the investigation record), etc., it is reasonable to view the defendant as suspending the crime on the ground that there is a circumstance that the defendant's free will impedes the completion of the crime in light of social norms rather than suspending the crime, and it is not reasonable to view the defendant as suspending the crime on the ground that there was a possibility that the defendant could complete the crime of rape despite the above disability.

The defendant's assertion in this part is not accepted.

2. The defendant and the prosecutor asserts that the judgment of the court below as to the unfair sentencing of both parties is too heavy or unhutiled and unfair.

In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is necessary to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, the crime of this case committed by the criminal defendant is very poor to have committed an attempted rape of a victim who is under the age of 13, who is under the age of 13. The crime of this case is not committed by the criminal defendant, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental shock, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental shock, and there is no history of criminal punishment against the criminal defendant against the defendant, such as the defendant's failure to take advantage of the victim, and the fact that the defendant is a university student under the age of 20,000,000 won, regardless of the victim's intent,