2. In view of all favorable circumstances, such as the recognition of the Defendant’s crime and the reflective appearance, the Defendant’s abuse does not seem to have been intended or habitually committed, and the Defendant’s first offender who has no record of criminal punishment, etc., the crime of this case is deemed to have abused the Defendant by preventing the Defendant, an instructor, from leaving about about 30 minutes of the victimized child entering a narrow object.

Although the Defendant appears to have acted wrong, the Defendant committed the instant crime by leaving out the status of the Defendant who is obligated to actively protect and guide the child, and thereby adversely affected the formation and growth of the personality of the victimized child, as well as the trust of the parents’ instructors, such as the victimized child’s parents.

The Defendant did not receive a letter from the victimized child and his family members up to the trial of the party. Unlike the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, even if the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and other various circumstances shown in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, are comprehensively taken into account, it cannot be said that the lower court’s punishment is unfair due to excessive

3. In conclusion, 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.