All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant displayed the test of the commercial economy, education, physical interest, and general finance general 4 subjects to D with the aim of attempting to enter the D university, which is a student who was in a close-friendly manner, and did not show the answer sheet of each of the above subjects, the Korean language, English, and cost management accounting, and the answer sheet.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting D of the facts charged that the Defendant interfered with the performance of duties concerning the test management for the end of the first semester of 2018 at C High School by deceptive means, by showing the test sites and answers of all the above seven subjects with the intent to establish an improper relationship with D as evidence, was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The evidence consistent with the facts charged in this part of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse is only the victim’s statement. However, even if the victim’s statement is credibility, the Defendant’s act did not reach the degree of indecent act, and the Defendant did not exercise power on the part of the victim regarding the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of recognizing the credibility of the victim’s statement and determining that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on indecent act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.