The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 4 million, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. In the case of ex officio determination of the employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, the lower court omitted its determination.

However, in this case where only the defendant appealed, since the punishment more unfavorable than the original judgment cannot be changed to the defendant in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, the original judgment should not be reversed on this ground.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16734 Decided December 22, 2017, etc.). 3. The following are favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is divided into and against his/her own crime; (b) the Defendant paid 4 million won to the victim in the course of the investigation; and (c) the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish the Defendant by agreement; (d) the degree of the Defendant’s indecent act is not more severe; and (e) the Defendant was punished twice due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act; and (e) the Defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime.

However, due to the instant crime, it appears that the fear of the victim who was married at night seems to have been made probable, and the Defendant committed the instant crime only for two years, even though he was placed in the line of suspension of indictment on the condition of completion of the education in the same kind of crime in 2017, the Defendant committed the instant crime. The Defendant committed the instant crime. The Defendant committed the instant crime only for two years, even though he was placed in the line of indictment suspension on the condition of completion of the education in 2017.