The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with 3 years and 6 months, 80 hours, and the disclosure and notification of information between 5 years) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The circumstances on the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial are most of the lower court’s determination of the sentence and due consideration is given to the Defendant.

The Defendant, as the head of the so-called prudent business entity, committed a single rape and a 24-time indecent act against his employees, who were under his management and supervision. In light of the content and method of each of the instant crimes, the frequency of the crimes, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the criminal quality of the Defendant is very heavy.

In the first instance, there was an additional agreement with some victims, but it is about the defendant's responsibility for action.