The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel (unfair sentencing) is that the victimized person has a sense of defense against the defendant.

The crime of this case has been committed contingently, and it is against the finding of mistake, the defendant has made efforts to recover damage, the victim has expressed his/her intention not to have the defendant punished, the defendant is subject to disciplinary dismissal in his/her workplace if he/she is sentenced to imprisonment without labor or greater punishment, and the wife and children are able to suffer difficulties in maintaining livelihood, and the defendant is not subject to the same mistake.

In light of the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced to the two-year suspended sentence and the forty-hour suspension order for sexual assault education in the month of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The crime of this case can reduce the amount in arrears to the victim who caused consultation due to insurance premiums in arrears while the defendant worked in the National Health Insurance Corporation.

In explaining that "Before and after the times, women who were found to have the same problem, she would have reduced the amount of delinquent taxes and her going to the Moel," etc., the nasium demand on July 10, 2015. On July 10, 2015, the victim and the victim met with the victim, parked a car at a location of human resources, forced the victim in the car, collect the hand in the car in the car, and collect the hand in the car in the car, and commit indecent acts. In light of the above circumstances of the crime, it is highly likely that the defendant would have attempted to meet the physical contact with the victim by using his occupational role, and it seems that the sexual humiliation and the destruction of the victim was considerably high due to the crime of this case.