All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds of appeal by the defendant 1) The defendant's act as stated in the facts charged of this case is generally acknowledged, but since he was out of sacrifies and did not have a child, the judgment of the court below which found him guilty of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) The punishment of the court below (7 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s reasoning for the appeal by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, in particular ctv video-faging photographs, etc., the Defendant was found to have been found to have been out of a child victim as recorded in the instant facts charged, so the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the entire facts charged in the instant case was erroneous.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

With respect to this case, even though the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor due to abuse of the same victimized child even before, he/she is reappointed during the period of suspension of execution.