The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (2 million won in punishment, and 24 hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the crime is recognized and against the victim, the injured party does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, and the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment including the same power, except for punishment imposed by minor fines due to the crime of this type on around 2011.

On the other hand, however, the degree of prosecution is less severe.

It cannot be said that the crime of this case was committed, and the fact that the victimized person appears to have caused sexual humiliation and mental suffering is disadvantageous.

In light of the above circumstances, the lower court did not change the sentencing conditions to be separately determined by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence was determined in consideration of the above circumstances, and the new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, as well as various other circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and theories of change, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable, and is excessively heavy, beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

The defendant's argument in sentencing is not accepted.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, it is corrected as follows: (a) the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure; and (b) the Decree on the Destruction of Employment Restriction No. 1 as “the Decree on the