All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness that it is difficult to suppress the impulse of the crime of drinking through drinking while suffering from mental disorder at the time of the instant crime.

B. The sentencing of the court below (the defendant, prosecutor) is unfair (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program at 2 years and 6 months and 40 hours of imprisonment) because it is too unreasonable (the defendant). On the contrary, the above sentencing is unfair because it is too low (the prosecutor). 2.

A. In full view of the following: (a) the circumstance leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime; (c) the circumstances after the instant crime; and (d) the result of the Defendant’s mental appraisal by the Medical Care and Custody Center at the Ministry of Justice, which can be known through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court; and (d) the Defendant’s mental disorder cannot be deemed to have reached a state where the Defendant had no or weak ability to

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretion should be determined 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 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.

It is unfair to maintain the first-class sentencing judgment in full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing.