All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The judgment below

The text of the text of the sexual assault treatment program.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is as follows: (a) the lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment; (b) 40 hours of sexual assault treatment programs; and (c) the disclosure and notification of personal information between two years) is too heavy or unreasonable (the Defendant withdrawn his/her claim on the first trial date). (b) The lower court’s judgment and the prosecutor’s unjust assertion on each of the sentencing of the Defendant and the prosecutor are also deemed unreasonable.

Circumstances such as the fact that the defendant has been hospitalized for a long time due to a mental disease (the on-site illness), that the defendant reflects his fault in depth, that the defendant has a family to support the defendant including the disabled person, that many people want to take the wife, and that there are no other criminal records in addition to the previous criminal records of the same kind of fine for one time, etc. can be considered as a normal situation favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, at night, the victim seems to have suffered a big shockion in the vicinity of his/her residence, but there is no particular recovery measure, and the defendant committed the crime of this case while being tried for a sex offense, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the equity between the punishment of the same kind and the similar case, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, each of the unfair sentencing arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor are all dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeals filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, and it is evident that there is any error as ordered by the lower judgment (Article 16(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that an order to attend a school for a person who commits a sexual crime may be imposed ex officio pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure