The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of employment restriction order) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

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 it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized and reflects the instant crime, and the first and the second facts charged were stolen from the side of the common column in which the victims are located, and the form of the victim’s tolerance is regarded as a change in the common space due to the gap in the common space, and the time is shorter, and the victims were not aware of the fact of damage.

However, in the case of the third charge, sexual humiliation seems to have significantly increased.

The Defendant, from around 2011 to 201, was sentenced to a fine three times on the grounds that he invadedd a structure with a view to stealing a luminous light view by women, and was sentenced several times to imprisonment (three times of imprisonment and one time of suspended execution) and completed the execution of the sentence on several occasions due to the crime that intruded a public toilet for the purpose of meeting sexual desire, but was committed without being aware of the period of repeated offense, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant was able to repent the instant crime.

In addition, in full view of the following facts: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime committed, various conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant records and pleadings, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.