All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, 8 months of imprisonment and 6 months of imprisonment, 40 hours of orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs, 3 years of employment restrictions related to children and juveniles, 10 years of personal information registration, and 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and 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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too remote, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.