The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment of the lower court (five years of imprisonment and 80 hours of sexual assault treatment program) that unjustly alleged the sentencing is too unreasonable, and the amount of the punishment is determined unreasonable.

2. As new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court’s judgment, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to those of the lower court.

In particular, the crime of sexual intercourse between the defendant and the victim of the defendant's friendship with the awareness that the victim of the victim of the defendant's friendship has committed a sexual intercourse with the defendant's family by relianceing the defendant's mind in his/her reputation, even though there is no relative relationship between the defendant and the victim, the crime of sexual intercourse with the victim's family and the victim's father does not inevitably change the nature of the crime, mental and psychological impulse toward the victim's and the defendant'

I seem to appear.

Considering all the sentencing factors revealed in the appellate court trial, including these circumstances, the sentence of the court below is too heavy to the extent that the court’s reasonable discretion exceeds the court’s reasonable discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

In addition, the risk of recidivism is significantly low, such as the defendant's age, occupation and environment, social relation, details and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, the outline, and the fact that there is no criminal punishment for sex crimes.

In addition, taking into account other circumstances such as the degree and expected side effects of the defendant's suffering by an employment restriction order, the prevention effect of sexual crimes that can be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims of children and juveniles from sexual crimes, etc., there are special circumstances where the defendant shall not be issued an employment restriction order. Thus, the defendant shall not be issued an employment restriction order pursuant to the proviso to Article 56 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.