The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (the imprisonment of three years and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 80 hours) is unreasonable because the sentence is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, while denying his criminal act in the lower court, is recognized by the appellate court, and submits a rebuttal to this court.

However, as the defendant denies the crime in the court below, the victim was present as a witness in the court of the court below and stated again and in detail his experience of sexual assault damage.

The court of original judgment, which directly heard the statement, directly admitted the credibility of the statement, found the defendant guilty of the facts charged against the defendant.

The victim had to undergo another mental pain in the process of the statement in the court, and such pain has not been provided with appropriate measures for healing, except that the victim, alone or together with his family, until this judgment is rendered.

There is still no use by the victim.

In addition, new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court.

In consideration of these circumstances, the court below's sentencing conditions changed considerably compared to those of the court below on the sole basis of the defendant's aforementioned recognition of the crime and the submission of the reflective statement.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, considering all the conditions of sentencing revealed by the appellate court, the sentence of the court below is too heavy to the extent that it exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion of the court.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's argument.

3. The risk of re-offending is significantly low in light of the Defendant’s age, occupation and environment, social relationship, details and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, re-determination, and criminal punishment for sex crimes, etc.

In addition, it is possible to achieve the level and expected side effects of the defendant's disadvantage by the employment restriction order.