All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment with prison labor) is too heavy (the Defendant) or unhulled (the prosecutor).

B. It is unfair for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose or notify personal information.

2. Determination

A. We examine both the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion on unreasonable sentencing.

The fact that the defendant rapes the victim on two occasions, inflicts an injury by using violence, and taken rapes against the victim's will against the victim's will, etc. is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, that the victim, who had been a man, became aware of the fact that he had sexual intercourses with another man twice, led to the crime of this case contingently, that the victim was her wife against the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, that the defendant was the third-year student of the university of this case, and that no criminal punishment has been imposed prior to this case, are favorable to the defendant.

Examining the sentencing criteria of the Sentencing Committee and other various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the circumstances leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

B. The lower court held that the Defendant’s exemption from disclosure and notification order of personal information was unfair, and there was no record of criminal punishment, and there was no evidence suggesting that the instant crime was habitual origin of the Defendant’s sexual assault, and that there was a high risk of recommitting sexual assault in light of the Defendant’s family and social ties.