The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim, the judgment of the court below which convicted him of the indecent act among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in the six-month period of imprisonment, surveillance of protection, community service for 160 hours, and participation in sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the lower court also argued the same purport, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of a forced indecent act against the Defendant by taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of “decision on the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

Examining the aforementioned facts and judgments by comparing them with records, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Improper sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on statutory penalty, within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

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.

The sentence shall be imposed only when there are circumstances such as the maintenance of the first-class sentencing judgment in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing.