The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower judgment’s sentencing (a two-year imprisonment and an order to complete sexual assault treatment programs 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the case of the Defendant, and on the part of the case of the attachment order, dismissed the prosecutor’s request for the part of the case of the attachment order, and only the Defendant appealed therefrom. As to the part of the attachment order, there is no interest in the appeal, and thus, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, this part is excluded from the scope of the final

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary determination is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The Defendant, among the circumstances cited by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, recognized all the charges.