The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the lower court’s punishment (the imprisonment of October, 80 hours, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, the disclosure and notification of personal information for two years, and the three-year employment restriction order) against the accused is too unreasonable.

2. Although there are no circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the lower court appears to have rendered a sentence in full view of such circumstances, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court in the instant case (the victims who continuously want to be punished) where there is no change in circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, even if all the sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, such as the character and conduct of the defendant, family environment, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are examined, the sentence of the court below is unreasonable.

In addition, the method of crime, the defendant's suspended prosecution in addition to the defendant's prior convictions of suspended execution of sexual crime power, and the previous convictions in 2016 also intruded into another person's residence in order to see the appearance of shower.

Considering the above, it is also necessary to order the disclosure and notification of personal information against the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.