The judgment below

The part of "child-related institutions" in the order.

The punishment of the lower court (the first crime: imprisonment with prison labor for two months, the suspension of execution for two years, the second and third crimes as indicated in the holding: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 40 hours, the employment restriction order for 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 since it is without merit

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding “child-related institutions” in the order of the court below as “welfare facilities for the disabled,” and Article 62(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 62(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, as to the crime of Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution 1 of the Criminal Act, “B and the last part of the item for the order to attend a lecture” is a crime of Article 1 of the Act on the Suspension of Execution 62(1) of the Criminal Procedure. In the case of the crime of this case

“B, even if the court below decided, omitted the judgment on the imposition or exemption of the order to attend a lecture for the first crime.

Even though the judgment of the court below was appealed only by the defendant, it is based on the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change.