A. Considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, the Defendant’s mistake was seriously reflected in the Defendant’s life in prison for more than three months, and the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingency while under the influence of alcohol, and that the Defendant agreed to do so smoothly with the victim, the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, order to complete education, and order to restrict employment) is too unreasonable.

B. Considering the motive of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor, the form of indecent act, and the attitude of committing the instant crime in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the nature of the instant crime is somewhat weak, and the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the repeated crime period, the above sentence of the lower court is rather unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below sentenced the defendant to the above punishment on the grounds of the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances alleged by the defendant and the prosecutor are already considered in the court below's sentencing, and the defendant and the prosecutor did not submit new sentencing data that could change the sentence in the court below at the court below. Other factors such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment, criminal records, criminal records, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered, the court below's punishment against the defendant is deemed appropriate, and it cannot be recognized that the defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too heavy or unfeasible.

3. Conclusion.