The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended execution in August, 200, 40 hours of order to attend sexual assault treatment courses, confiscation and employment restriction order) of the lower court is too unreasonable;

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). While the Defendant recognized the instant crime in the trial court, the instant crime was committed against the victim’s will by intrusion upon the victim’s residence. However, the crime of this case was committed against the victim’s body, and thus, the nature of the crime is not good, the victim did not reach an agreement with the victim, the materials submitted in the trial court did not change within the meaning of sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment, and other various circumstances, which form the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings of this case, are considered in full view of the following: (a) the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive, and thus, (b) the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.