All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the first and second crimes as indicated in the lower judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and the third crimes as indicated in the lower judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, and orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The fact that all of the judgment crimes are recognized and contradictory to the judgment of the court below, and the crime Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court below is committed, the equity between the first head of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below and the case where the judgment was received at the same time, and the fact that the wife and children should be supported are favorable to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant solicits a victim with mental or physical disability to become the counterpart of sexual traffic, arrange sexual traffic to arrange sexual traffic, and has a very significant criminal record of receiving juvenile protective disposition due to similar matters, the damage has not been recovered, the victim wants to punish the defendant, and the victim did not without permission without complying with the direction of the superintendent of the protective observation during the suspension period, and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and does not seem to be the normal situation of the opening.

On the other hand, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Therefore, in full view of the defendant's age, sexual conduct, health, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and theories in the above circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or uneasible and unfair, and thus, the defendant and the prosecutor's improper argument in sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.