2. The lower court determined that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant without the victim’s permission, and sentenced the Defendant to the least sentence out of the applicable sentencing range, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, given that the Defendant invaded upon the victim’s residence and failed to resist, and that the Defendant might have suffered considerable mental pain due to the instant crime, the victim expressed his intent not to punish the Defendant, that the Defendant was attempted to commit the instant crime, that the Defendant was the first offender who did not have any criminal record, and that the Defendant was the first offender who did not have any criminal record.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been appropriately determined taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances, and there is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances that could be reflected in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment (in light of the background and content of the instant crime, and the process of deliberation, etc., even though the Defendant was led to confession at the time of the lower court, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have changed in circumstances enough to reflect the sentencing conditions). In addition, taking into account all the sentencing conditions in the pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, criminal records, criminal records, the circumstances after the crime, and the outcome, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’

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