The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (a prison term of eight months, a suspended sentence of two years, a community service for 80 hours, and a sexual assault treatment lecture for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the instant crime; (b) the Defendant is a primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment; (c) the Defendant appears to have committed contingent crimes under the influence of alcohol; and (d) the Defendant paid considerable money to the victim; and (c) the Defendant agreed to do so

However, on the basis of statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. Considering the unique area of sentencing for the first instance that is respected under the trial-oriented principle and the directism of our criminal litigation law and the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, the sentencing judgment for the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of the discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, it is reasonable to conclude that maintaining the sentencing of the first instance judgment is unfair, only in cases where there are circumstances, such as where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance judgment, and where there are no exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The case back to the instant case and health room, and the lower court, notwithstanding the favorable circumstances as seen earlier, has forced the victim, who had a distance of 18 years or more from interest on the subordinate employees under his/her occupational direction and supervision, by force, or by putting his/her fingers into clothes, and committed the crime.