The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment for four months, the suspension of execution for two years, the probation, the community service order 40 hours, the order to attend a lecture for the treatment of sexual assault 40 hours, the employment restriction order three years) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too remote, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is groundless.