A. Defendant 1) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant’s unfair sentencing (a long-term five years of imprisonment and a short-term three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) There are special circumstances in which the accused should not be subject to an employment restriction order, and the period of employment restriction for the five-year period sentenced by the lower court is too unfair.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is too uneasible to the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to each of the unfair arguments of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances.

Recognizing that the sentence of the lower court was determined appropriately by taking into account the main circumstances in full, there is no change of circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the appellate court, and even considering all other factors for sentencing as provided in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the lower court’s sentence was excessively heavy or frighted and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion given to the lower court.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Ultimately, since it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court, all of the arguments of the Defendant and the Prosecutor cannot be accepted.

B. On the Defendant’s argument that the employment restriction order was unfair, in light of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the background and frequency of the instant crime, the effect of preventing sexual crimes that may be achieved by the employment restriction order, and the content and degree of disadvantage that the Defendant received, there are special circumstances where the risk of recidivism is significantly low or the Defendant’s employment should not be restricted.

It is not recognized, and the five-year employment restriction period as determined by the court below is excessive.