The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime, committed the instant crime; (b) the value of the stolen goods is relatively minor; and (c) the degree of physical force exercised in the course of indecent act by force, etc., the Defendant’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, 40 hours’ order for sexual assault treatment programs, 40 hours’ order for restriction on employment) is too unreasonable.

2. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has the unique area of the first instance court as to sentencing determination in the current Criminal Procedure Act, so it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing determination in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by sufficiently taking into account the above favorable circumstances alleged in the first instance court. In addition, considering the following factors, including the fact that the Defendant’s criminal power and damage have not been recovered, and there is no special change in circumstances that the lower court should change the Defendant’s punishment after the pronouncement of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unreasonable to determine the sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.