The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by mistake of facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 5 million and the amount of KRW 40 million for sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in detail, following the summary of the evidence, “the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel and the determination thereof”.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of law as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to whether the sentencing is unfair or not, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentencing of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the following, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the ground that the new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of the lower court was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.