The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 10 million, sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court ordered the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for a fine of KRW 10 million and 40 hours, taking into account favorable circumstances, such as: (a) the instant crime was committed on the road at night by compulsion of a person who she committed an indecent act; (b) the nature of the crime is not good; (c) the victim appears to have been frightened due to such indecent act; (d) the Defendant re-offending even during the repeated crime period; (e) the Defendant committed a crime of this case; (e) the Defendant was committed for the same kind of offense; (e) the Defendant was frightly and late; and (e) the Defendant appears to have committed a contingent crime after drinking with the victim; and (e) the Defendant agreed with the victim.

However, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence by considering all the aforementioned circumstances, and the lower court did not change the conditions of sentencing that may vary from that of the lower court in the trial.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is without merit (in this case, only the defendant appealed shall not be sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment heavier than a fine in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration). 3. The defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.