The defendant and prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is unreasonable due to its gross negligence.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable as it is unfair. 2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure and notification orders and employment restriction orders.

2. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of the first instance court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of the discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing deliberation and the sentencing criteria, or it is reasonable to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing deliberation, etc., the determination of the first instance court shall be reversed in an unfair judgment.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, in light of the applicable law and content of the instant crime committed, where the Defendant, while drinking alcohol at a friendly and main place including the victim, was aware that the victim was frighten, and instead, led the victim to quasi-rapeing the victim’s personal dial building behind the victim’s body, and taken the place in which his sexual organ was put into the victim’s drafting, the crime is not good. The victim appears to have caused considerable sense of sexual humiliation and mental pain due to the instant crime, and the victim sought punishment against the Defendant.