The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, along with a summary of the lower judgment, was indicted as charged for committing sexual assault treatment program ordering a sexual assault treatment program order for a period of 3 years, 40 hours, 3 years, 40 hours, and 3 years employment restriction order for the Defendant, by recognizing the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, where the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim in a state of mental or physical loss or resistance impossibility by inserting his sexual organ into a part of the victim who was under the influence of alcohol in the said house at the new wall time after drinking alcohol at the same time (rape).

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defendants) that the above sentence (three years of imprisonment, etc.) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Improper sentencing of the relevant legal doctrine refers to cases 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, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines.

In a case where the appellate court’s determination of sentencing is deemed unfair in light of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s determination of sentencing, etc., the appellate court should reverse the judgment below’s unreasonable determination of sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). B. 1) A normal defendant favorable to the judgment of the appellate court, who has been recognized by the criminal investigation agency, is against one another.

The circumstances that the Defendant seem to have committed a contingent crime while under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime are somewhat few circumstances to consider sentencing.

The defendant is the defendant.