2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s statement that all of his criminal acts were recognized and the mistake is against the Defendant, the Defendant has no record of punishment for sexual crimes before, and the Defendant’s family members and branch members want to take the Defendant’s preference.

However, the crime is not good in light of the details and content of the crime and the method of the crime, since the victim, who had no special relation with him, was sexual intercourse with him by reporting his returning home under the influence of alcohol and bringing him into his residence.

Although the Defendant appears to have suffered sexual humiliation and mental suffering due to the Defendant’s crime, the crime and the attitude after the crime are not good in that the Defendant made any effort to recover from damage without making any effort, and that the Defendant committed secondary damage by denying his own crime by having the victim attend the court below and make the victim testify.

Until now, the victim has not been able to take advantage of the victim, and the victim still desires to be punished by the defendant in the trial.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering the aforementioned various circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

B. Ex officio determination on the application of revised Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) and enforced from June 12, 2019, Article 59-3.