2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Even if the injured party does not want the punishment against the Defendant, the degree of abuse inflicted on the injured party is not weak, and it does not seem that the instant crime was contingent or has a single nature, such as the Defendant’s working as a teacher for a long time and assaulting students several times.

In light of such overall circumstances, the lower court determined a punishment, and there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

In addition, when comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, family relation (open father), relationship with the victim, the number of crimes and circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the deliberation by the court below and the party, the punishment imposed by the court below is not hot since it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

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