All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, and the instant crime committed by the Defendant by coercioning the victim under the age of 13 and by committing an attempted crime, and the nature of the crime is not good, strict punishment against the Defendant is required.

However, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, since the defendant has divided his mistake.

In light of the facts that it is difficult to see the extent of the indecent act in this case, the age, sexual conduct and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and the sentence imposed by the defendant is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 16(2) main text of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes). "The main text of Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes" is a clerical error in Article 21(2) main text of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Children from Sexual Abuse. "Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes" in Article 4-3 4 3 4 4 4 4 is obvious that it is a clerical error, and the judgment of the court below is corrected or deleted in accordance with Article 25(1)