Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, who are the legal fiction of appeal, is not applicable (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2823, 82 reductionDo611, Jan. 18, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7079, Aug. 19, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do41, Aug. 19, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 201Do7079, Feb. 41, 2010).

2. Summary of grounds for appeal - The lower court’s punishment of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of attendance order of sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unreasonable.

3. The following circumstances are the circumstances: (a) the Defendant made a confession of all of the instant crimes and recognized his mistake; (b) the degree of indecent act is relatively minor; (c) the Defendant deposited KRW 10 million to recover the victim’s damage; and (d) the Defendant has no record of punishment for the same sex offense other than the past one sentenced to a fine on five occasions due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unnecessary Measures after Accidents), the crime of bodily injury, the crime of causing property damage, and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (LA).

However, on the other hand, each of the crimes of this case is a case where the defendant had caused a sense of sexual shame by using humbucks and rhing the victim, who is a part-time student, at least eight times in the operation of the clothes store, and is not good in light of the content and frequency of the crime, and the victim seems to have caused a sense of sexual humiliation due to each of the crimes of this case. Such circumstances are unfavorable to the defendant.

The above circumstances are different from the above circumstances.