The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (a three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Although there is a special reason not to restrict the employment of the defendant who was improper in the employment restriction order, the court below's order to restrict employment of the defendant is improper.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to an unfair assertion of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking full account of all the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances.

Recognizing that the sentence of the lower court is determined appropriately by taking into account the important circumstances in full, there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may change the sentence in the first instance court.

In full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including such circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, and the lower limit of the applicable sentences under the law of this case, three years and six months, etc., the punishment sentenced by the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion given to the lower court, because it is too unreasonable for the lower court

It does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. In light of the Defendant’s age, occupation, family relation, health status, record of crime, degree of risk of recidivism, anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the employment restriction order, and the preventive effect of sexual crimes that can be achieved therefrom, the special circumstance where the Defendant should not be remarkably lower risk of recidivism or restrict the Defendant’s employment.