2. The lower court determined that: (a) considering the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as ① the following: (i) the method of committing the instant crime is interview and social risks; (b) the victim’s face, handout, etc.; and (c) the victim’s fear and mental shock is very heavy; and (d) the victim’s fear and mental shock is deemed reasonable at the time of committing the instant crime; (b) the confession and rebuttal are made by the Defendant; (c) the victim does not want any criminal history; (d) the victim did not want to agree and punish the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s family members want to take into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances in the instant case’s records and arguments, such as the circumstances after committing the crime.

In full view of the factors and sentencing criteria as shown in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

shall not be assessed.

B. In addition, there are no circumstances to recognize that the lower court’s maintenance of the lower court’s sentencing decision is unfair, considering the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account while determining the Defendant’s punishment.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.