The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment and forty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for sexual assault crimes, and recognized all the crimes, thereby going against the mistake, and the Defendant did not repeat the crime.

The victims submitted a written agreement containing the intent that they would not want the punishment of the defendant at an investigative agency (According to the pre-written investigation of the defendant's request for an attachment order against the defendant, the victims were willing to prepare a written agreement with the defendant, but they do not seem to have made a genuine statement by expressing the defendant's sentiment that they would be subject to any punishment since they could not hear the word of the defendant after the case.

Evidence records 349 pages, which show that the health of the defendant is not good.

However, on November 26, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a minor hobby, etc. at the Busan District Court, and again committed the instant crime after the enforcement of the sentence was completed on July 16, 2015.

The defendant, by force, committed an indecent act against the victim who is a minor under the age of 13, and committed an indecent act against the victim with the intellectual disability 3 and the victim with the intellectual disability 2 level △△△△△, thereby, the victims seems to have suffered a considerable sexual humiliation and mental suffering.

Although the Defendant did not obtain a driver's license and had a record of being punished several times due to driving without a driver's license, the Defendant also did not lower the crime of driving without a driver's license in the case of a driver's license.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, and the fact that there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too vague.