The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court below, the lecture for the treatment of sexual assault for 80 hours is taken.

In light of the fact that the defendant's appeal summary of the grounds of appeal (unfair sentencing) reflects the wrong by recognizing all the facts of the crime, committed the crime of this case in contingency under the influence of alcohol, and committed a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Use of Cameras, etc.) on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, it is unreasonable for the court below to impose an order to attend sexual assault treatment lectures for eight months and 80 hours, which is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The crime of this case was committed with the intent to take the appearance of women who are viewed as being used by the defendant, and tried to take the form of a victim who reported a change of the victim's mobile phone that the victim entered the body of the toilet. It is not good that the damage has not been recovered, and the defendant committed the crime of this case at the Seoul Central District Court on June 25, 2014 after being sentenced two years to a suspended sentence of six months, due to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kamera, etc.) at the Seoul Central District Court on June 25, 2014, and committed the crime of this case during the suspended sentence. In full view of all the conditions of sentencing recorded in the records and arguments of this case including the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal, the above assertion is without merit.

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

However, in the judgment of the court below, the order to take a lecture for sexual assault treatment for 80 hours is clearly erroneous terms of office “to order the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours”. Thus, the correction is made ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.