The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: The sentencing of the lower court’s punishment (two and a half years of imprisonment, and completion of a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) that has been unjustly alleged is too unreasonable.

2. As new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court’s judgment, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to those of the lower court.

Taking into account all the sentencing factors revealed in the appellate trial, the lower court’s sentence is too heavy to the extent that it exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion of the court.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In light of the Defendant’s age, occupation and environment, social ties, details and result of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, the outline, and the fact that there is no criminal punishment due to a sex offense, etc., the risk of recidivism is significantly low.

In addition, taking into account the degree and expected side effects of the defendant's suffering by the employment restriction order, the prevention effect of sexual crimes that can be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims of sexual crimes, there are special circumstances where the defendant should not be issued an employment restriction order.

Therefore, according to Article 3 and the proviso of Article 56 (1) of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse ( January 16, 2018), the defendant is not subject to an employment restriction order.

4. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.