The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As new sentencing data are not submitted in the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant for unfair reasons for sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court, the Defendant is deemed to have been punished, suspended sentence, and sentenced for the same offense, and the Defendant committed the instant offense during the period of the same repeated crime, and thus, there is a high possibility of criticism against the Defendant, and the Defendant does not seem to have made any effort to prevent recidivism, and in full view of various circumstances, including the motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have excessively exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.