The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In the first sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the term "defendant" and "long-term" shall be between the defendant and "long-term".

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the Defendant was merely 15 years old at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, was imprisoned with sexual values and economic concepts, and all of his criminal acts were recognized, and thus, the Defendant’s sentencing of the first instance court (a maximum of two years and six months of imprisonment, a short of two years of imprisonment, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances that there was no past record of criminal punishment.

2. The court’s determination of the sentence that is unfair under Article 361-5 subparag. 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act means that the exercise of discretionary power to judge is unfair to the extent that it is permitted to exercise discretion. Ultimately, it means that the exercise of discretionary power to judge is inappropriate, starting from the type of punishment to the sentence through the applicable sentences, thereby causing unfair penalty.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a unique area of the sentencing judgment of the first instance court, based on the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, which is based on the discretion of judges that take into account the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

Therefore, considering the circumstances where the illegality of the judgment of the court of first instance is proven in light of the circumstances where the court of first instance restricts the character as a inner part of the appellate court and imposes an element as an ex post facto review, it is necessary to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance only where the illegality of the judgment of the court of first instance is proven. As a result of the review of whether the sentencing of the court of first instance

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant committed the instant crime by committing the act of similarity with the victim C, which is a juvenile, by force, and by using the Internet website and mobile phone apps.