The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment, and fifty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing on the basis of the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing conditions are not changed in comparison with the first instance court, and the sentencing on the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance sentencing is within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment on the ground that the difference between the appellate court’s view and the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, the lower court determined the Defendant by taking into account the following factors in relation to the instant case, the Defendant’s favorable or unfavorable sentencing conditions, and other circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

When there is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment when the court below reached the trial, and when one year and six months of imprisonment that the court below decided against the defendant is the lowest of the sentencing range under the applicable sentences and the sentencing guidelines, and when the sentence is inevitable because the nature of the crime of this case is not very good, the sentence is not recognized to have been exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the court below is too excessive.

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

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.