The sentence of the lower court (a punishment for a period of one year and six months, 40 hours, order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, order to disclose and notify information for three years, and order to restrict employment for five years to children and juveniles-related institutions, etc.) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

If 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, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The instant case did not change any particular sentencing condition compared to the lower court, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing are deemed to have been reflected in the grounds for sentencing. Above all, the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime of the same kind, and taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; (b) circumstances after the crime was committed; and (c) other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant pleadings and records, such as the criminal record, etc., the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is too excessive and unreasonable.

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

[However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the main text of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall be amended to “the main text of Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018).”