2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was punished against the Defendant by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s act of committing a sexual crime was delayed later at the court of the lower judgment; (b) the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for a sex offense; and (c) the Defendant agreed with the victim as the victim was unable to resist under the influence of alcohol; and (d) the victim was fright to sexual shock and sexual humiliation; and (e) the victim was satisfing due to the Defendant’s attitude to avoid liability after the instant case was at issue; and (e) other damage was incurred; and (e) the Defendant was committed late at the court of the lower judgment; and (e) the Defendant was committed with the victim

In full view of the conditions for sentencing as expressed in the judgment of the court below and the scope of the recommendation of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the judgment of the court below is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

In addition, the appellate court of this case in which only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court below which rendered the lowest sentence of punishment by law has no intention to accept the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing.

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