The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (restricted employment for three years in welfare facilities, such as imprisonment with labor for six months and forty hours, orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and orders issued by institutions related to children and juveniles) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment by taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the victims of the agreement with D, the exposure certificate treatment, etc., the Defendant’s spouse is also seeking to endeavor to treat the Defendant and prevent recidivism, etc., and the Defendant’s spouse has been punished several times in the same kind of crime, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for three times among them. The Defendant committed the instant crime even if he/she was sentenced to a fine by repeating the crime during the suspended sentence period, and the Defendant committed the instant crime while he/she was sentenced to a fine during the suspended sentence, is highly likely to repeat the crime, and the crime of this case was committed with considerable sexual humiliation to the victims.

In light of the materials submitted in the trial at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below, and the sentencing factors indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, occupation, reputation, character and conduct, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., do not seem to be unfair because the sentencing of the court below excessively goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as there is no reason.