All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of two years and six months, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 80 hours, the confiscation (No. 1)) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and the fact that the sentencing is made after the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence differs from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the fact that there is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court’s reasoning stated by the lower court is unreasonable or excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion to the injured party and the injured party, etc.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. In conclusion, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. Thus, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.