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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) under the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant, the Defendant has been punished for drinking or driving without a license prior to the instant case; (b) in particular, the Defendant has been sentenced for four months of imprisonment due to driving without a license, such as a crime record in the lower judgment; and (c) takes into account the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though there is no inevitable reason for having to drive without a license during the period of repeated offense, and (b) takes account of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime while against the instant crime in favor of favorable circumstances;

In addition, the sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age and sexual behaviors were considered together, and the sentence against the defendant was determined by considering the various factors.

As above, the sentencing of the court below appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion 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.