The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant, at the time and place of the criminal facts in the decision of the court below, committed an indecent act against the victim due to the fact that he and she only talked about the victim and her relatives about the Taekwondo, and that he and she did not commit an indecent act against the victim by stealing or spreading the victim's chest.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (four years of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for two years and six months, probation order, community service order 120 hours, and order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture 40 hours) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

C. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to disclose or notify personal information for a period of four years, even in extenuating circumstances that may not disclose or inform the Defendant of the improper disclosure or notification order.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the judgment on the "judgment on the defendant and defense counsel's argument" in the judgment

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence examined by the court below, the decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

It is reasonable to respect the argument of unfair sentencing in cases 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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court did not change the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court’s failure to change the sentencing conditions. In full view of the factors revealed in the course of the argument in the instant case.