The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one and half years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is unfair because it is too large (the Defendant first prepared on December 18, 2017, stated the grounds for appeal that mental and physical weakness were not mental and physical, but the Defendant withdraws his claim on the first hearing date). 2. Determination on December 2, 201, the Defendant led to the confession of each of the instant crimes, and recognized his mistake, and the damage caused by the larceny among the instant crimes is relatively minor, and the damage was returned to the victim, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

However, there is a very significant degree of illegality caused by each of the crimes in this case, as the defendant committed 7 times of interference with his duties, 7 times of assault, 1 time of coercion, obscenity, 11 times of public performance, larceny, and 11 times of larceny, and the defendant has not yet reached an agreement with the victims and has not made any effort to recover the victims' damage. The victims of interference with duties, assault and coercion among each of the crimes in this case are good convenience store operators or citizens, and there is poor quality of each crime, and the defendant needs to repeatedly punish each of the crimes in this case before the lapse of 6 months after the execution of imprisonment was completed, and most of the crimes committed by the defendant have been repeatedly committed in the Incheon Gyeyang-gu area for a short period of time, and there is no apprehension of community, and there is no criminal punishment of the defendant more than 25 times and no more than five times of punishment has been imposed against the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and all the conditions of sentencing as seen in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.