The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with 8 years and 40 hours of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The circumstances on the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial are already considered by the lower court, which has already been determined by the sentence and sufficiently taken into account.

The Defendant, under the pretext of so-called “other conditions only,” received money from the victim, and raped the victim with the opportunity to deliver the victim’s mother to the victim, and subsequently committed an indecent act against the victim. In light of the specific contents, method, and result of each of the crimes in this case, the Defendant’s criminal nature is very heavy.

Unlike the judgment of the court below, the defendant recognized the whole crime at the court below, but it is about the degree of responsibility of the defendant's act.