The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of two years and six months, and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program with forty hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant committed the crime of this case by committing an indecent act against the victim, following the victim who returned home with the new wall's house up to his residence, who was locked by the victim, and who was locked by the victim's house, and committed an indecent act against the victim locked. The method of committing the crime seems to have been likely to have resulted in a more serious result if the defendant did not have been discovered by the male-child body of the victim who was entering the victim's house at the time when the victim was living. In light of the fact that the method of committing the crime seems to have been very dangerous, the crime is highly poor.

The victim seems to have suffered significant mental impulses with considerable sense of sexual humiliation in his/her dwelling area to be most safe.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake in depth, that the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual agreement with the victim when the defendant was in mind, and that the defendant did not have any record of the crime in addition to the punishment of the fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act on one occasion before the crime of this case, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, means of crime, results, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in the instant case, and the scope of recommended sentences and the criteria for suspended execution according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.