All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case by admitting the victim E’s statement without credibility of the statement as evidence. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts due to violation of the rules of evidence.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) It is improper for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose or notify personal information.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal under this part of the judgment below, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by specifying the judgment on the “a summary of evidence” part of the judgment.

Examining these judgments of the court below in a thorough manner with documentary evidence, the judgment is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts identical to the defendant's assertion [the victim stated in the court below that "the defendant attempted to leave his chest on February 20, 2015, but did not take the chest because he was born" (the page 83) but the victim stated consistently at the investigative agency that he was delivered his chest, and the above testimony at the trial was made after two years and eight months from the date of the crime of this case, and it is difficult to see that the defendant's chest was not delivered. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the above facts is without merit.

B. In full view of the factors indicated in the records of the instant case’s judgment regarding the unfair determination of sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully taking account of all the circumstances, including the various sentencing grounds asserted by the prosecutor, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is to be changed.

Therefore, the prosecutor's status.