A. The defendant is merely sleeps from the victims' side, and there is no fact that the victims were forced to commit an indecent act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of August, community service, and forty hours of attending sexual assault treatment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the victims were forced to commit an indecent act as stated in the facts charged by the Defendant.

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in comparison with the evidence examined, the lower court’s finding and determination of the above facts are justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the judgment

B. Determination 1 on the wrongful argument of sentencing is an initial crime without any criminal history.

However, the defendant committed an indecent act against the victims by repeatedly, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the background and consequence of the prosecution.

Although the victims seem to have suffered a considerable mental impulse and sexual humiliation due to the crime of this case, the defendant is consistent with his defense, and he did not receive any instruction from the victims.

In full view of the various circumstances, including the above circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court after the judgment, the sentencing of the lower court is not unfair.

2) The Defendant’s age, occupation and environment, social ties, details and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, the outline, and the fact that there was no criminal punishment history due to sex crimes, etc. are significantly low risk of recidivism.

In addition, the degree and expected side effects of the defendant's disadvantage by the employment restriction order, and the prevention of sexual crimes that can be achieved thereby.