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 court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the sentencing conditions of the court of first instance cannot be deemed unfair by excessively exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant records and arguments, including the following: (b) the submission of new sentencing data at the trial; (c) the submission of new sentencing data at the trial; and (d) the Defendant did not change the sentencing conditions, such as the circumstances favorable to the Defendant specified in the first instance judgment (such as the recognition of the Defendant’s crime, reflective intent, etc.); and (d) the victim’s damage assessment of the indecent act by force is maintained.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.