All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentencing (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with 10 years and 80 hours of imprisonment) of the gist of the grounds for appeal is so excessive that it is unfair (defendant). On the contrary, the above sentencing is unfair because it is too low, and it is unfair for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from the order to disclose or notify personal information (the prosecutor).

A. Based on the statutory penalty, the lower court ought to have discretion to take into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and reasonable scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with regard to the sentencing, and the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial by the Defendant and the prosecutor are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the sentence.

The crime of this case is committed against a victim who is married with the defendant continuously for a long time. The crime of this case is highly likely to be committed in light of the specific contents and methods of the crime, the degree of damage, etc. Therefore, the defendant is liable to the defendant.