The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of employment restriction order) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The father of the victims expressed his/her wish not to punish the defendant for the first time in the trial. We examine whether the above intent not to punish him/her can be viewed as a “unguilty for punishment,” which is an element for mitigation of a sex crime, among those who are specially cultivated persons.

Of the sentencing factors for sex offenses, the term "ineligible for punishment" means cases where a defendant is seriously divided into his/her own crime, has made a serious effort to reach an agreement with him/her to compensate for the victim, and the victim is accurately aware of the legal and social meaning of the grounds for not punishing the victim, and does not want the punishment of the defendant.

On the other hand, when the victim is a minor, a disabled person, a relative, etc., the meaning, content, and effect of the victim or his/her legal representative's expression of intention not to punish shall be understood and identified in light of the age, intelligence, and intellectual level of the victim or his/her legal representative, and such expression of intent shall be limited to cases where it falls under the result of a detailed

In addition, in the case where the victim is a minor, whether the legal representative of the victim includes the victim's intent in the expression of no punishment imposed against the defendant should be determined by comprehensively considering the type and contents of the subject case, the age of the victim, the actual subject and contents of the agreement, the circumstances before and after the agreement, the attitude of the legal representative

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5658, May 13, 2010). Before examining, evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and the victim’s written opinion on the victim’s defense counsel on December 14, 2018 and March 11, 2019, which were bound in the records of this case, and the victim on February 23, 2019.