The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one and half years of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, 5 years of restriction on employment) 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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the determination of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime committed by the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim, who is a single principal offender, and was arrested in the said crime, and immediately arrested the said victim for the purpose of retaliation against the report of his/her personal identity, and by force force the said victim again, and by force the said victim committed an indecent act by force, the said victim committed an indecent act for the purpose of retaliation against the report of his/her personal identity, and by taking another victim, who is a customer of the said one’s customer.

The lower court, under consideration of the favorable circumstances, took into account the fact that the Defendant both recognized and reflected the crime, and that the victim of coercion or retaliation intimidation does not want the Defendant’s punishment. On the other hand, in the case of forced indecent act or retaliation intimidation, it appears that the victim would have suffered considerable sexual humiliation and mental suffering, and that in the case of the crime of bodily injury, the degree of injury is heavy, and the victim did not receive a letter from the victim, even though there had been several records of punishment for the same kind of crime, and that the Defendant again committed the crime of this case even if they had been punished several times for the same crime, sentenced the Defendant to a punishment within the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines.

In full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the following various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is determined to be within the reasonable scope of the discretion of sentencing, and the sentence imposed by the lower court is too excessive.