The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for two years and six months, order to complete sexual assault treatment programs with 80 hours or more, order to restrict employment for five years, and confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing was unabundled and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court below's five 17th page of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected by changing "each former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the entry of places for sexual purpose multiple) to "Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the entry of places for sexual purpose multiple)"