A. Defendant 1) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a crime No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and a crime No. 2 and No. 3 in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2) Although there is a special reason not to restrict the employment of an improper defendant to whom an employment restriction order is issued, the lower court’s order to restrict employment is unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on each of the unfair arguments of sentencing by Defendant and the prosecutor, and the sentencing by the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court should respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking full account of all the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances.

The sentence of the court below is recognized to have been appropriately determined in consideration of the important circumstances in full, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can change the sentence of the court below in the depth.

In full view of such circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all the sentencing factors as shown in the instant pleadings, including the circumstances before and after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too minor or minor, and is in excess of the reasonable scope of discretion given to the lower court.

It does not appear.

Therefore, each of the defendant and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

B. In light of the Defendant’s age, occupation, family relationship, health status, crime records, degree of risk of recidivism, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entry due to the employment restriction order, and the preventive effects of sexual crimes that can be achieved therefrom, which are acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.