The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

The term "the defendant shall be subject to the sexual assault treatment lecture for 40 hours" in the column of the Order.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant case and the part regarding the case regarding which the request for attachment order was filed.

Despite Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, this part was excluded from the scope of the trial of the court, as there was no benefit in appeal as to the part of the claim for attachment order.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do2823, 82Do611 delivered on January 18, 1983). 2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant (one year of imprisonment and forty hours of sexual assault therapy) is too unreasonable.

3. Unlike the investigation agency, the defendant has led to the judgment of the court below, which led to the confession of all the crimes of this case by the court of the court below, and his mistake is divided, and the defendant does not have the same criminal record and has no record of being sentenced to the suspension of execution or more.

However, the crime of this case is likely to have been committed by rapes or indecent acts by force on several occasions against the victim, who was in a shesheshel or shelshel relationship, in which the defendant must raise and protect the defendant in a sound manner, and the content of the crime and the liability for the crime according to the nature of the crime is very heavy, and the victim who was damaged by the crime of this case from 12 years to 12 years of age can be determined by the presumption that

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable even if it is considered that there is a need to support the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant.