The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the lower court’s punishment [the summary of open crimes shall be limited to imprisonment for one year, order to complete a sexual assault treatment program with 120 hours, disclosure of information for three years, and notification [the summary of open crimes shall be limited to a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the act of using cameras, etc

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the lower court did not recognize that the lower court’s sentencing is too too unreasonable and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.