The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable that the sentencing (two and half years of imprisonment, and forty hours of sexual assault treatment programs) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

2. The sentencing on the basis of a statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.

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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. Of the circumstances cited by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the Defendant recognized all of the instant offenses, among the circumstances cited on the grounds of appeal, and reflects one’s wrongness; the crime of rape of this case is committed against attempted crimes; the Defendant was in the position of the workplace where the Defendant was enrolled in the instant case; the Defendant lost his/her workplace due to his/her duty at the workplace where the Defendant was enrolled; the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment exceeding the past fine; the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment exceeding the previous fine is

In addition, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing to be newly taken into account in the trial.

Thus, the judgment of the court below is reasonable within the scope of discretion.