2. The lower court, under the circumstances that the Defendant’s crime of this case is the same repeated crime, determined a sentence by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s confession and reflectiveness, taking into account the Defendant’s criminal records, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the defendant (the note that the defendant was not the ownership of the defendant, the defendant's reflects the fact that the defendant was the defendant, the economic situation, his dependents, etc.) are determined by the court below considering sufficient factors in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above conditions of sentencing have changed in the court below.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s 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.