The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of deliberation about sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

In addition, comprehensively considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the trial process, such as the instant case’s records and circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and no special change in circumstances that may change the lower court’s sentencing is found.

3. Conclusion.