The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

The defendant shall be treated for sexual assault for 80 hours.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal asserts that the lower court’s punishment (a period of eight years of imprisonment, completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours, and restriction on employment for five years) is unreasonable since the Defendant was excessively unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the amount of the punishment is unreasonable because the amount of the punishment is too uneasible.

2. The Defendant, as a part of the victim’s leadership in 201, began to commit an indecent act in 2014 in which the victim was 11 years of age when he was 13 years of age when he was 13 years of age when he was 14 years of age when he was able to commit a crime by rape when he was 14 years of age.

The victim suffered a very severe mental and heart pain due to the defendant's continued crime, and even has reached a warning that it is difficult to properly lead school life.

As such, the possibility of social criticism against the defendant is very high.

However, the defendant acknowledges all of his criminal acts, repents his mistake in depth, and is true to the victim and his mother.

Unlike the judgment of the court below, it seems that the victim overcomes a certain degree of mental impulse, and at the appellate trial stage, the victim's mother living under the protection of the victim's mother and the school attends the normal life.

The parent-child of the victim was unable to support the married child with the Vietnamese nationality, and the defendant's wife continued to support the married child, and the defendant paid to the mother of the victim a little amount of cash, which is almost all of his own property, to the victim's child support assistance, etc.

Defendant has no record of criminal punishment for sex crimes.

Considering the above various circumstances and the sentencing factors revealed to the appellate court, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment seems to have been too unreasonable and unfair in the appellate court. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

3. The defendant's appeal for conclusion is with merit, and Criminal Procedure Act.