The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (4 million won, 400,000 won, 40 hours’ completion of sexual assault treatment programs, registration and submission of personal information) 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 circumstances asserted by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial of the lower court, such as the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim, etc., were mostly revealed in the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no particular change in the situation in the sentencing guidelines with respect to the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered.

In addition, the degree of indecent act in this case is not weak, and the mental impulse of the victim seems to be significant.

In addition, the defendant asserts to the effect that the registration of personal information is unfair, but according to the provisions of Article 42 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, a person who has been convicted of a forced indecent act provided for in Article 298 of the Criminal Act has become final and conclusive.