All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) 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 conducted within an 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 ground that the difference from the appellate court’s opinion is somewhat different from that of the appellate court, 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 addition, the lower court’s judgment did not have any special change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance judgment, and even if the Defendant was found to have been in excess of the scope of discretion of the disabled person.

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

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor 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.