The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

5,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

3.2

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (such as imprisonment with prison labor for four years) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

Judgment

1) The crime of this case at an unfavorable level is committed against a female victim, who is a foreign employee at the first time at the her mother’s conference operated by the Defendant with his her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her shec

On the first day of the work, the victim seems to have suffered serious sexual humiliation as well as mental impulses which are difficult to recover by sexual assault against the defendant, who is the employer.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand the purport that the Defendant, since the investigation agency, did not repent his mistake even before the court below, and the Defendant was satisfeingly satisfy, and the Defendant was satisfying to have sexual intercourse with the Defendant, and acted as the victim.