The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant on the grounds of appeal (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 2 years and 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial of a party appear to have already been determined by the lower court while sufficiently considering the circumstances favorable to the sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment, based thereon, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It is difficult to see that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and therefore, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below (the defendant, who denied part of the facts charged in the court below, has been denied part of the facts charged in the court below, and at the same time during the trial, has led to the confession of all crimes in this case

However, in this case where there is no particular damage in the trial of the party, such circumstance alone is insufficient to affect the judgment of the court below. Accordingly, the defendant's person.