In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the sentence of the court below falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the Defendant’s mistake is divided.

However, the defendant purchased the sex of a juvenile whose perception of sex has not been fully established to resolve his/her sexual desire, and considering the fact that sexual purchasing crimes have a bad character in that they have a serious adverse effect on the settlement of the proper and sound sexual culture in our society, and that they are targeted for juveniles who are adults to be protected.

Even in 2014, the defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment by committing an act of buying the sex of a child or juvenile, and has committed a sexual crime against a juvenile before that.

In addition, the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of suspended execution due to unauthorized driving.

In addition to the aforementioned legal principles and circumstances, it is difficult to see that there exists a special change in circumstances that may vary in circumstances that make it difficult to view that there exists a different punishment from the original judgment to the trial, and taking account of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, health, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of