2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 it.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by taking into account the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning. In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

Furthermore, considering the legislative intent of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities to regulate employment restrictions on sexual offenders with institutions related to children and juveniles and welfare facilities for disabled persons, and the characteristics of human businesses engaged in by the defendant, etc., restriction on employment for a certain period of time is necessary for the defendant, and other factors of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.