The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment and forty hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) against the accused against the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant, while recognizing each of the instant crimes, is against the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant has no other criminal records other than those subject to punishment once for the instant crime in 1971.

However, each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant by assaulting his spouse prior to his divorce over several occasions, thereby committing an indecent act. In light of the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, methods, frequency, and degree of damage, etc., the crime is considerably inappropriate in light of the nature of each of the crimes, and the victim did not receive a letter from the victim up to the trial, and the victim did not submit new sentencing data in the trial, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment. In full view of all other circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant records and arguments, the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; and effective June 12, 2019, on an ex officio decision on an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and Article 59