The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The defendant is a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Examining ex officio prior to the prosecutor’s judgment on the grounds of appeal, the court below’s judgment of first instance and the legislative purport under Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Provisions”) and Article 23-2(1) of the Litigation Promotion Act (hereinafter “Special Provisions”), the contents of the defendant’s right to fair trial and defense as prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, the constitutional spirit of declaration of due process, and the need to substantially protect the defendant’s right to fair trial in the appellate court and the appellate court without any justifiable reason, even in cases where the first instance court and the appellate court, who were found guilty, appealed from the trial in accordance with the special provisions only by the prosecutor and the appellate court, and even after the non-appearance of the appellate court, were tried, and the judgment of first instance and the appellate court became final and conclusive by newly or again rendering a judgment of conviction, without any justifiable reason, may apply by analogy the new provisions to the appellate court and the defendant who did not appear in the appellate court for retrial within the period prescribed by the first instance and the appellate court.

In addition, if the defendant filed an appeal based on the recovery of the right to appeal without filing a request for review, and asserts the above grounds for appeal, it can be seen as constituting “when there is a ground for request for retrial” in the judgment of the court below as stipulated by Article 383 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it can be deemed as constituting “when there is a

B. In accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding the first instance court, the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable to the judgment of the first instance court, in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding that the first instance court had been proceeded with without any grounds attributable to the defendant.