The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture for not more than 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) under favorable circumstances, the Defendant committed the instant crime; (b) made efforts to recover damage, such as when committing the instant crime; (c) deposit KRW 10 million for the victim; (d) the Defendant already released from the position at the university due to the instant crime; (e) there was no record of criminal punishment in addition to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act; and (b) social relation is obvious and contingent; and (b) the Defendant and the injured party were professors and students’ related persons; and (d) the Defendant was either denied all or part of the instant crime or intended by not later than the fifth trial date, which recognized the instant crime from the investigative agency, by not later than the fifth trial date.

The punishment was imposed in consideration of the following: (a) a person was trying to avoid or reduce his responsibility, such as defense, and was exempted from serious apology or consideration for the victim; and (b) a person was punished in consideration of the fact that not only the time of the crime of this case but also the mental suffering suffered by the victim for a long time after the crime of this case was committed, and that he

Examining the following circumstances: (a) the lower court’s sentencing seems to have been reasonably determined by fully taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances; (b) there is no change in circumstances that could be evaluated differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial; and (c) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime were committed, the lower court’s sentencing is determined within a reasonable and reasonable scope; and (c) thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.