All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal asserts that the prosecutor too unfasible and unfair with regard to the punishment imposed by the court below (two years of probation, 80 hours of community service, 40 hours of order to attend sexual assault therapy, and confiscation). The defendant asserts that the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even in light of the materials submitted at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment, and comprehensively considering various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have been too weak or unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, both the prosecutor and the defendant's argument of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

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