All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable for the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) to be sentenced.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) It is unfair for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose personal information.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the instant case states that the conditions of sentencing have not been changed compared to the first instance court with respect to each of the unfair arguments by Defendant and the prosecutor, and that where the first instance judgment does not deviate from a reasonable scope, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing of the Defendant compared to the lower court, and the written agreement was submitted on May 16, 2017 when the first instance court was in the trial, and the said written agreement states that the injured party would be subject to a favorable punishment against the Defendant.

However, according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the term "unlimited to punishment" in a sex offense means a case where the defendant is seriously divided into his/her own crime, has made a substantial compensation for damage by making a serious effort to reach an agreement, and the victim is accurately aware of the legal and social meaning of the non-limited to punishment and does not want to be punished by the defendant.

Therefore, if the victim is a disabled person, he/she is not subject to punishment if it is judged that there is no reason to generally understand the victim's intention to punish him/her.

Therefore, if the victim is a disabled person, the meaning, contents, and effects of the victim's expression of intention not to punish should be understood and identified in light of the victim's age, intelligence, and intellectual level, and it is limited to the result of detailed and careful investigation and determination of whether such expression of intent is true.