The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) 1) The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (a prison term of 10 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of probation, observation of protection, community service, 80 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures, 80 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unreasonable.

2) In particular, while ordering the Defendant to observe the protection and observation, the lower court imposed “the Defendant not to drink alcohol during the period of protection observation” as special matters to be observed (Article 3(3)). This is unreasonable in light of the provisions of Article 32(3) of the Protection Observation, etc. Act and the various circumstances of the Defendant, which provide that “the Defendant shall not drink not less than one day’s volume of alcohol” may be imposed.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court as to the appropriateness of the principal sentence, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new data on sentencing in the trial. Circumstances in which the Defendant alleged for unfair reasons for sentencing are already reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court’s sentencing. The Defendant committed an indecent act with his/her former employee for more than two hours during the night when the victim was victimized by using the employer’s position. The Defendant appears to have suffered considerable sexual humiliation, fear and mental suffering, and economic suffering from the said act. The Defendant was punished by a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in 209, and the Defendant’s age, the Defendant’s environment, Defendant’s motive for committing the instant crime, the general method or method of coercion, and various circumstances that were expressed in the record [1 month or more years following the instant sentencing guidelines.]