All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The summary of the judgment of the court below, after completing a meeting with the president and employees of the restaurant where he serves as the chief of the office, the defendant was indicted as the facts charged that the defendant committed an indecent act (violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse) by driving in the back of the taxi with the victim (the 17-year-old age), and driving in the back of the taxi and staying home with his head on the back of the taxi. The defendant was indicted as the facts charged that he committed an indecent act (the indecent act of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse) by driving the head on the buckbuck in the victim's buck site and driving in the back of the taxi. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, and ordered the defendant to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours, and to put an employment restriction order for five years.

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) 1) The above punishment (one year of imprisonment, etc.) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2) The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Improper sentencing of the relevant legal doctrine refers to cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines.

In a case where the appellate court’s determination of sentencing is deemed unfair in light of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s determination of sentencing, the appellate court should reverse the judgment below’s unreasonable determination of sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). B. 1) A normal defendant favorable to the appellate court should have committed one’s crime late later.