All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

All applications filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is true that the defendant made an expression that may be a somewhat problematic issue in the course of arranging the relation with the victim, or this cannot be viewed as a intimidation only with respect to the expression of a strong mind about the notification of the victim's unilateral hedging, since the defendant brought about an eumaer with the consent of the victim, with respect to the theft of the massageist at the time of the original adjudication, it does not constitute theft. In the original adjudication, it is not likely that the crime of indecent act by compulsion is not established since the defendant entered the telecom with the victim on the premise of a sexual relation with the victim, and it is a justifiable act that can be acceptable under the social norms because the defendant entered the telecom with the victim on the premise of a sexual relation with the victim. As to the offense of insult at the time of the original adjudication, it is true that the defendant made a somewhat excessive expression against the victim, but it constitutes a justifiable act that can be seen as a performance or an act that

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 10 million) imposed by the court below (the defendant and the prosecutor) is too unreasonable for the defendant, and the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair for each of them.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected this part of the defendant's assertion and found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and the records are justified.

Therefore, as alleged by the Defendant, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s appeal is without merit.

B. Examining the various sentencing conditions of the instant case regarding the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, each of the instant crimes was committed.