The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of one year for the crime No. 1 as stated in the judgment below, and the completion of sexual assault treatment programs for two years and six months and forty hours for each crime set forth in No. 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below) 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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (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 already considered by the lower court, which has already been determined by the sentence and sufficiently taken into account.

Unlike the judgment of the court below, although the defendant recognized the crime at the court below, it cannot be viewed as a new circumstance to the extent that the evaluation of the defendant's responsibility for act is different.

B. There is no special change in circumstances more than those considered in the original judgment in the sentencing conditions.

According to this, the court below's determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

I am.