All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service order, Defendant B: 10 months of imprisonment, and 40 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Litigation Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the ground that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted at the trial court, and when comprehensively considering all the reasons for sentencing specified in the records of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit and thus dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, “Defendant B” is deleted, and “Defendant A” is added, and the suspended execution (Article 60(3) of the Juvenile Act is deleted) is subject to Article 25(1) of the same Act.