All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment for six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 80 hours, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

It is also improper to exempt the accused from the disclosure and notification order.

2. Determination

A. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing is hot or unhued and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment; (b) the Defendant’s distorted sexual impulses expressed in the instant crime appears to be significantly improved depending on the principal sentence and the execution of incidental dispositions; and (c) the Defendant’s psychological counseling and psychological treatment run against the Defendant during the period from March 6, 2020 to April 24, 2020 on the grounds that there is no risk of re-afusing a sex offense; (b) the Defendant’s age, family environment and social relationship; (c) details and details of the crime; (d) the circumstances after the crime were committed; (e) the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects that the Defendant would suffer from the disclosure and notification order; and (e) the effectiveness of preventing sex crimes that could be achieved through such disclosure and notification; and (e) the effect of protecting the victims of sexual crimes.