The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds of appeal (the 4 years of suspended execution, the observation of protection, the 40 hours of pharmacologic treatment, the 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

Although the Defendant sought the wife by citing that he was suffering from a sacrine sacrine in the heart, the above circumstances cannot be viewed as a significant change in circumstances to the extent that the lower court would change its punishment in light of the quantity, frequency, etc. of phiphones possessed by the Defendant.

When comprehensively taking into account such circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of a crime, circumstances after the commission of a crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines as indicated in the arguments of the lower court and the party deliberation, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, 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.