The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair form of punishment) is that the Defendant made a confession of all the crimes and reflects the wrongs while committing each of the crimes of this case due to the deterioration of impulse ability, which led to the economic difficulty due to the failure of father's business failure, etc., the damaged goods of certain victims have been returned, and the damage has been recovered by the return of the damaged goods of some victims, and on September 26, 2014, the Seoul East Eastern District Court rendered a two-year judgment of suspended execution in October due to fraud, etc. In light of the fact that the judgment of this case should be judged simultaneously with the case of fraud for which the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and the case of equity should be considered, six months of imprisonment with prison labor imposed on the Defendant

2. The crime of quasi-indecent act by force in this case constitutes a sexual crime under Article 2(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes. Article 16(2) of the same Act provides that where a court declares a guilty verdict (excluding postponement of a sentence) on a person who committed a sexual crime, an order to attend a course necessary for the prevention of recidivism or order to complete a sexual assault treatment program shall be issued concurrently for up to 50 hours: Provided, That the same shall not apply to any special circumstance where an order to attend a course or order

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by failing to concurrently impose an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a program on the Defendant, which did not appear to have any special circumstance, despite having sentenced the Defendant guilty of not a suspended sentence on the crime of quasi-indecent act.

However, despite the above erroneous determination by the court below, the above erroneous determination by the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of this court due to the principle prohibiting disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act in this case where only the defendant appealed.

As such, Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1029 Decided April 26, 2012 is decided.