All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. On the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below's sentence (two years of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete the course) against the defendant is alleged to be unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that it is unfair because it is too unfasible and unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that exemption from the disclosure and notification order to the defendant is unfair.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case in determining whether both parties made an unfair argument in sentencing is a case where the Defendant satisfydddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddds

Accordingly, the victim seems to have suffered a considerable shock.

Nevertheless, the defendant failed to take particular measures to recover damage against the victim, and the victim is punished by the defendant.

However, there are circumstances that can be considered favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of the defendant, the submission of a number of rebuttals, the fact that the defendant's family members, etc. want to leave the defendant's wife, and there is no criminal history.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, family relation, criminal records, sexual intercourse, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the court below's punishment is too heavy or unreasonable to the extent that it should be destroyed because it is too heavy. Thus, this part of the argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s age, social relation, criminal record, and risk of repeating a crime, circumstances leading to the instant crime, and details of the instant crime, and the outcome of comparison and balancing between the Defendant’s disadvantage and anticipated side effects, and the expected effects of the instant disclosure and notification order, which may be achieved by the public prosecutor’s improper assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification order, based on the records.